# Charles County officer murders dog



## allan1058

Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...

http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html



Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy


On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!



Sharon & Joe Mattia
Hughesville
301-274-3434 (Home)
301-848-9446 (Cell)


----------



## mv_princess

Could you please check around to see if it's already been posted. 

TIA


----------



## allan1058

mv_princess said:
			
		

> Could you please check around to see if it's already been posted.
> 
> TIA



sorry it wasnt on the topic so i didnt see it. please excuse me extreme poster : )


----------



## vanbells

I got that e-mail too.  It's sad.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Read the story*

Since the officer used deadly force, I would put the burden on the sheriff's dept. to show documentation that this person being summoned in fact had that address.
If they can't, I'd hire the best damned attorney in Washington D.C. and go after the cop and the department for millions.

If they shot my dog and had the wrong house (with no documentation), I would call the national SPCA and let them take the case to a national level.  

In this case, I think that would be a very good place to start.


----------



## TexasSunflower

allan1058 said:
			
		

> Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...
> 
> http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> 
> 
> Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon & Joe Mattia
> Hughesville
> 301-274-3434 (Home)
> 301-848-9446 (Cell)




That is just a darn shame! I know I would be getting a lawyer!


----------



## christy217

I can't imagine this! The dog was protecting his turf, even if he did growl, bark, whatever. I know there are good cops and bad cops, but I don't care for them at all, and I have people in my family that are cops. 

I would be doing something to make sure my story was heard too. 

I once hit an animal, my cousin's dog, I was only going 30 mpg but the dog literally came out of no where. I was so upset, I starting throwing up and hyperventalating. When I went to get help from a neighbor they thought I hit a person I was so distraught. I could not even drive home after that, I had to leave my car at my father's house that night. 

These poor people.


----------



## SLIM

allan1058 said:
			
		

> Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...
> 
> http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> 
> 
> Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon & Joe Mattia
> Hughesville
> 301-274-3434 (Home)
> 301-848-9446 (Cell)


First of all, how come your son did not see the officer at your house when he discovered Max? Was the Sheriff 'hiding' or something?
Second, do you have a "Beware of the Dog" sign posted?
If not , you may not be able to do anything at all.
I'm so sorry you lost Max, especially the way you did. I would definately make sure the whole world knew about it. Call '7 on your Side' or something.
Certainly the dog may have reacted in a 'threatening' manner but pulling a gun out and shooting him was UNCALLED for, especially when he was on a leash.
Good Luck in whatever you do.


----------



## christy217

I don't know who gave the red karma, but you didn't have to be a coward about it!


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Something Stinks Bad!*

This officer is saying that the dog attacked him.
I know that if my dog was not tied and someone pulled up in a car, that
dog would be barking like hell and around to the front of the house before the guy got out of the car.  What the heck was this cop doing trapesing around this gentleman's property serving a warrant.  Knock on the front door and if there ain't nobody there, LEAVE!

A six year old could tell this was a crock from the get go.  And this guy (from the news report on TV) was involved with two other shootings of dogs.  This guy needs to be investigated and the sheriff needs to ask why these people are roaming around the outside of a house, when clearly there is no one home.

If the dog was tied, a good vet would be able to tell if there was stress caused by the dog tugging on the lead.  If the owner provided documentation that the dog had rabies shots (and if I was the owner), I would have sicked another 10 rottweilers on the guy, telling me he has to take my dog for rabies and they need the head.  What a line of Bull$$$$.

I hope the owner digs up Johnny Cochran and SUES THE LIVING S$$t out of the ENTIRE DEPARTMENT!


----------



## camily

I know this cop personally. He is NOT at all a mean "dog killer". I will defend him until the end. He is a great man with a great family. Very gentle actually. I have known the family for over three years.


----------



## camily

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Since the officer used deadly force, I would put the burden on the sheriff's dept. to show documentation that this person being summoned in fact had that address.
> If they can't, I'd hire the best damned attorney in Washington D.C. and go after the cop and the department for millions.
> 
> If they shot my dog and had the wrong house (with no documentation), I would call the national SPCA and let them take the case to a national level.
> 
> In this case, I think that would be a very good place to start.


The father refrained from stating that it was the last known address of his ESTRANGED SON. So yes, they had reason to be there.


----------



## camily

Charles County officer ... 05-19-2007 11:12 PM So go hug your dog killer, glad hes got one slut for a friend...  
And one has anything to do with the other ball-less red giver how?


----------



## 88stringslouie

*No documentation?*

It's my understanding that the police had no documentation that showed this guy's estranged son ever lived at that address.

Forgetting all that, why did the cop shoot the dog 7 times?
Tell me, what dog have you ever seen that would not succumb to one bullet, let alone 7?  That's ridiculous and downright crazy.

I still say there is hogwash going on here.  That dog was NOT loose or he would have ran around the front before the cop got out of his car.  If the dog broke the leash, there would be proof of that.

Many agencies have to inventory all their ammo.  Do they do that in Charles County?  If so, is there in fact seven bullets missing from that officer's weapon?
If this is the case, he should be questioned as to why he shot 7 times at the dog.  Is he that poor of a shot that he can't hit a dog a point blank range?  If the officer is in control of his weapon, there is no way in H$LL that he couldn't shoot the dog.  Come on, this story reaks man!  Why is it on record that this guy has shot two other dogs?  This was in the report on Channel 7.  

I say that the guy gets a super high class lawyer to have this thing investigated.  I would like to know why he's shot two other dogs.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*And further more*

Knowing someone for three years (unless you are married to them, and don't even take that at face value) does not give you much of a character reference.

What the heck does knowing his family have anything to do with this guy shooting a dog?  I say that a lawyer needs to subpeona the medical records due to the helacious bite that this "rabid and ferocious" dog inflicted.

I want to know why this guy has shot THREE dogs. I'm telling you, that is plain and downright nasty.


----------



## camily

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> It's my understanding that the police had no documentation that showed this guy's estranged son ever lived at that address.
> 
> Forgetting all that, why did the cop shoot the dog 7 times?
> Tell me, what dog have you ever seen that would not succumb to one bullet, let alone 7?  That's ridiculous and downright crazy.
> 
> I still say there is hogwash going on here.  That dog was NOT loose or he would have ran around the front before the cop got out of his car.  If the dog broke the leash, there would be proof of that.
> 
> Many agencies have to inventory all their ammo.  Do they do that in Charles County?  If so, is there in fact seven bullets missing from that officer's weapon?
> If this is the case, he should be questioned as to why he shot 7 times at the dog.  Is he that poor of a shot that he can't hit a dog a point blank range?  If the officer is in control of his weapon, there is no way in H$LL that he couldn't shoot the dog.  Come on, this story reaks man!  Why is it on record that this guy has shot two other dogs?  This was in the report on Channel 7.
> 
> I say that the guy gets a super high class lawyer to have this thing investigated.  I would like to know why he's shot two other dogs.


There are many unanswered questions. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume he did his best.


----------



## camily

Date Comment 
 Charles County officer ... 05-19-2007 11:24 PM If the slut shoe fits...and the balls are on the dog he killed..like hes got any..so you aint his friend Slut ho?  
Another brilliant coment.


----------



## Lilypad

camily said:
			
		

> I know this cop personally. He is NOT at all a mean "dog killer". I will defend him until the end. He is a great man with a great family. Very gentle actually. I have known the family for over three years.


Everyone should have a friend like you camily  -BUT something just doesn't sound right.  I cannot imagine the grief of the owners.  BTW do you know the owners of the dog?  Just curious.


----------



## kalmd

Does this forum have a moderator who can merge this thread with the already existing one that is several pages long?


----------



## camily

Lilypad said:
			
		

> Everyone should have a friend like you camily  -BUT something just doesn't sound right.  I cannot imagine the grief of the owners.  BTW do you know the owners of the dog?  Just curious.


No. Also, I have three dogs, one cat, a snake and many fish. I work for a vet and rescue and foster dogs. I also just happen to know this man personally and he has been at my house with my Rottie and Chessie (and beyotch of a terrier mix that I love to death!).


----------



## camily

kalmd said:
			
		

> Does this forum have a moderator who can merge this thread with the already existing one that is several pages long?


No.


----------



## river rat

Are you sure you know the same cop that they are talking about?

Officer Long?


----------



## sockgirl77

camily said:
			
		

> I know this cop personally. He is NOT at all a mean "dog killer". I will defend him until the end. He is a great man with a great family. Very gentle actually. I have known the family for over three years.


Yet this is the 3rd dog that he has killed in the past 7 years? :shrug:


----------



## cattitude

camily said:
			
		

> No.



Actually, yes there is.


----------



## Nickel

camily said:
			
		

> No. Also, I have three dogs, one cat, a snake and many fish. I work for a vet and rescue and foster dogs. I also just happen to know this man personally and he has been at my house with my Rottie and Chessie (and beyotch of a terrier mix that I love to death!).


 How old is he?  I went to school with a C Long, and it's bugging the crap out of me.


----------



## tom88

allan1058 said:
			
		

> Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...
> 
> http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> 
> 
> Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon & Joe Mattia
> Hughesville
> 301-274-3434 (Home)
> 301-848-9446 (Cell)


 I am very sorry for the loss of your dog.  Could you please inform the police as to the whereabouts of your son?  Thank you and God Bless.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> It's my understanding that the police had no documentation that showed this guy's estranged son ever lived at that address.
> 
> Forgetting all that, why did the cop shoot the dog 7 times?
> Tell me, what dog have you ever seen that would not succumb to one bullet, let alone 7?  That's ridiculous and downright crazy.
> 
> I still say there is hogwash going on here.  That dog was NOT loose or he would have ran around the front before the cop got out of his car.  If the dog broke the leash, there would be proof of that.
> 
> Many agencies have to inventory all their ammo.  Do they do that in Charles County?  If so, is there in fact seven bullets missing from that officer's weapon?
> If this is the case, he should be questioned as to why he shot 7 times at the dog.  Is he that poor of a shot that he can't hit a dog a point blank range?  If the officer is in control of his weapon, there is no way in H$LL that he couldn't shoot the dog.  Come on, this story reaks man!  Why is it on record that this guy has shot two other dogs?  This was in the report on Channel 7.
> 
> I say that the guy gets a super high class lawyer to have this thing investigated.  I would like to know why he's shot two other dogs.


 The son listed this address with the Circuit Court of Charles County.  I would suggest you check your facts!  And what movie of the week are you watching?  This isn't hollywood where an aggressive predator stops with one shot.  If a 125 pound dog is moving to you and begins to bite you, one shot is not going to stop it's central nervous system down shutting the dogs reaction down instantly!  Wheew....you need a reality check!


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Knowing someone for three years (unless you are married to them, and don't even take that at face value) does not give you much of a character reference.
> 
> What the heck does knowing his family have anything to do with this guy shooting a dog?  I say that a lawyer needs to subpeona the medical records due to the helacious bite that this "rabid and ferocious" dog inflicted.
> 
> I want to know why this guy has shot THREE dogs. I'm telling you, that is plain and downright nasty.


 But your ready to judge him in a few sentences of a thread?  Hmmm.  Perhaps you should listen to yourself!


----------



## river rat

tom88 said:
			
		

> The son listed this address with the Circuit Court of Charles County.  I would suggest you check your facts!  And what movie of the week are you watching?  This isn't hollywood where an aggressive predator stops with one shot.  If a 125 pound dog is moving to you and begins to bite you, one shot is not going to stop it's central nervous system down shutting the dogs reaction down instantly!  Wheew....you need a reality check!




And what movie of the week are YOU watching, CUJO?

It was a family pet and he didn't follow protocol.
He should of contacted the dog catcher.
Or maybe your watching CSI.  He was issuing a "child support" warrany not a warrant for murder or armed robbery.


----------



## tom88

river rat said:
			
		

> And what movie of the week are YOU watching, CUJO?
> 
> It was a family pet and he didn't follow protocol.
> He should of contacted the dog catcher.
> Or maybe your watching CSI.  He was issuing a "child support" warrany not a warrant for murder or armed robbery.


 I don't know what protocol your talking about?  If a police officer is being attacked by an animal, he has a right to defend himself!  The type of warrant is irrelevant!  He was there doing the job we pay him to do!  Now if it is found the officer did something wrong in the course of his duties then I am all for punishing him!  However, lets not take the right of a police officer to defend himself from an attacking animal away.  By all accounts, the officer was bitten, therefore I think that speaks as to what type of dog that was!


----------



## cattitude

tom88 said:
			
		

> the officer was bitten, therefore I think that speaks as to what type of dog that was!



I'd pay to see the pictures of his bite wound.


----------



## virgovictoria

cattitude said:
			
		

> I'd pay to see the pictures of his bite wound.


I stand behind Catt.  I'd match her wager.  This case has stink written all over it - yet I'm still waiting to hear the whole story.  I would, however, pay to see some significant evidence or at the very least, hear the officer speak.


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> By all accounts, the officer was bitten, therefore I think that speaks as to what type of dog that was!


My 10 month old daughter bit my ankle. What should I do?


----------



## (((echo)))

This is so f'n screwed up it's amazing!
I skimmed over the thread and didn't see it touched on BUT there is a point i would like to make...
The cop HAD NO REASON TO DRAW HIS WEAPON! PERIOD.
in the event of an animal attack, his first reaction should have been to discharge his pepper spray, there was no reason for deadly force


----------



## cattitude

(((echo))) said:
			
		

> This is so f'n screwed up it's amazing!
> I skimmed over the thread and didn't see it touched on BUT there is a point i would like to make...
> The cop HAD NO REASON TO DRAW HIS WEAPON! PERIOD.
> in the event of an animal attack, his first reaction should have been to discharge his pepper spray, there was no reason for deadly force



See simple enough, doesn't it?  

Dog barking..pulling on chain..oops..better get back to my cruiser.


----------



## (((echo)))

cattitude said:
			
		

> See simple enough, doesn't it?
> 
> Dog barking..pulling on chain..oops..better get back to my cruiser.


no need to go back to the cruiser...lets say he was correct and he was at the right house for the summons, that is conciddered a "moderate" threat level enviromnent which means in my eyes that he should have been ready to use "less than lethal" tactics...translation...pepperspray would be allready in hand.
it's common sense to know that the dog was allready barking, so he should have known to stay clear of the animal..


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't know what protocol your talking about?  If a police officer is being attacked by an animal, he has a right to defend himself!  The type of warrant is irrelevant!  He was there doing the job we pay him to do!  Now if it is found the officer did something wrong in the course of his duties then I am all for punishing him!  However, lets not take the right of a police officer to defend himself from an attacking animal away.  By all accounts, the officer was bitten, therefore I think that speaks as to what type of dog that was!



 Hmmm..dog barking...hmmm..I've already tried 2 other doors and no answer..hmmm..should I call animal control so I can knock on another door?? hmmmm..Wonder if dog will try to protect *ITS* home..hmmm..ah hell with animal control, I can always just shoot the damn dog..

Yeah, this guy has the judgement of an imbecile, lets give him a gun.


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> My 10 month old daughter bit my ankle. What should I do?


 If your daughter is 125lbs. and requires to be put on a leash when you leave I would suggest crate training her!


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> If your daughter is 125lbs. and requires to be put on a leash when you leave I would suggest crate training her!


Bite or no bite, it was uncalled for.


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> Hmmm..dog barking...hmmm..I've already tried 2 other doors and no answer..hmmm..should I call animal control so I can knock on another door?? hmmmm..Wonder if dog will try to protect *ITS* home..hmmm..ah hell with animal control, I can always just shoot the damn dog..
> 
> Yeah, this guy has the judgement of an imbecile, lets give him a gun.


 Is this what happened?  Did the officer hear the dog barking then go to a location where the dog could bite him so he could shoot the dog?  If these facts are true I would agree with your opinion of them.  Somehow I find it hard to believe the officer put himself in harms way just to be able to shoot a dog!


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> Is this what happened?  Did the officer hear the dog barking then go to a location where the dog could bite him so he could shoot the dog?  If these facts are true I would agree with your opinion of them.  Somehow I find it hard to believe the officer put himself in harms way just to be able to shoot a dog!


I find it hard to believe that he can justify killing 3 dogs in 7 years. I've managed to go 30 without doing it once. :shrug:


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> I find it hard to believe that he can justify killing 3 dogs in 7 years. I've managed to go 30 without doing it once. :shrug:


 How many criminals have you arrested?  Have you ever been on a warrant squad?  How many times have you been attacked by a dog when you have had a gun in your possession?


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> How many criminals have you arrested?  Have you ever been on a warrant squad?  How many times have you been attacked by a dog when you have had a gun in your possession?


How many times did he have pepper spray and a club in his possession?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> How many criminals have you arrested?  Have you ever been on a warrant squad?  How many times have you been attacked by a dog when you have had a gun in your possession?



It wasn't like the dog was at large, he was tied up on his property. Maybe the cop should have went about serving the warrant differently?


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> How many times did he have pepper spray and a club in his possession?


 My limited knowledge of people who serve warrants is they usually don't wear a typical gun belt because they often have to chase people.  There fore pepper spray may not have been an option.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> My limited knowledge of people who serve warrants is they usually don't wear a typical gun belt because they often have to chase people.  There fore pepper spray may not have been an option.



But have access to a gun? Ummm ok.


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> It wasn't like the dog was at large, he was tied up on his property. Maybe the cop should have went about serving the warrant differently?


 Maybe he should have.  But once in the situation where he is being attacked, shouldn't he be able to defend himself?


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> But have access to a gun? Ummm ok.


 Yes.  I would hope an officer serving warrants would be carrying a gun!  Don't you?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Maybe he should have.  But once in the situation where he is being attacked, shouldn't he be able to defend himself?



He was on the dogs property, what would you expect the dog to do? If I approach a dog anywhere and don't know it, you think I'm gonna approach it? Think not.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes.  I would hope an officer serving warrants would be carrying a gun!  Don't you?



But not pepper spray?


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> But not pepper spray?


 Well pepper spray is carried on the gun belt.  So if they officer has to chase the guy, then I think the officer would want to lighten his load as much as possible and not wear the entire gun belt, but just the gun in a holster.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well pepper spray is carried on the gun belt.  So if they officer has to chase the guy, then I think the officer would want to lighten his load as much as possible and not wear the entire gun belt, but just the gun in a holster.



Yeah, we all know how big the pepper spray bottles are..


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> Yeah, we all know how big the pepper spray bottles are..


 Well where would he carry them Miss perky?  In his pocket?  Yea he would be able to retrieve that in time.  In his hand?  Then wouldn't everyone say he is aggressive?  Tell me?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well where would he carry them Miss perky?  In his pocket?  Yea he would be able to retrieve that in time.  In his hand?  Then wouldn't everyone say he is aggressive?  Tell me?



He had no problem gettin that gun out the holster...:shrug:


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> He had no problem gettin that gun out the holster...:shrug:


 Right.  Because it's in a holster!  The pepper spray, when on a "gun belt" is also in a holster!


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Right.  Because it's in a holster!  The pepper spray, when on a "gun belt" is also in a holster!



Right. Why didn't he carry pepper spray then?


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> Right. Why didn't he carry pepper spray then?


 Oh my God!  Because he didn't wear his gun belt!  Because the gun belt adds an additional 20 pounds to a person!  The gun, worn in a holster may only add an additional 2 to three pounds on a person!


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> Oh my God!  Because he didn't wear his gun belt!  Because the gun belt adds an additional 20 pounds to a person!  The gun, worn in a holster may only add an additional 2 to three pounds on a person!


He could have hit the dog in the head and knocked him out.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Oh my God!  Because he didn't wear his gun belt!  Because the gun belt adds an additional 20 pounds to a person!  The gun, worn in a holster may only add an additional 2 to three pounds on a person!



WTF was the holster to the gun on? The pepper spray couldn't go on there too? Help me, please. I'm tryin to understand.


----------



## missperky

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> He could have hit the dog in the head and knocked him out.



Or not approached the dog..


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> He could have hit the dog in the head and knocked him out.


 Hit the dog with what?  His gun?  Wouldn't that be even worse?  I see the headlines now!  Police officer kills innocent bystander because of an accidental discharge of his weapon while trying to beat a dog!


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hit the dog with what?  His gun?  Wouldn't that be even worse?  I see the headlines now!  Police officer kills innocent bystander because of an accidental discharge of his weapon while trying to beat a dog!



With his foot or even kneed the dog..Ugh


----------



## sockgirl77

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> I find it hard to believe that he can justify killing 3 dogs in 7 years. I've managed to go 30 without doing it once. :shrug:


Charles County officer ... 05-20-2007 07:26 PM The ones that assault police officers by biting them!  
It is okay that he's killed 3 dogs? What are the odds that he's been "attacked" by 3 dogs in 7 years? I think he's a dumbass that puts himself in harms way too much. And no, going in a dog's territory when it is chained up is not part of the job when serving a warrant.


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> WTF was the holster to the gun on? The pepper spray couldn't go on there too? Help me, please. I'm tryin to understand.


 Ok.  A gun belt and a "belt" are two different things.  Usually people who serve warrants are in plain clothes and do not wear a gun belt.  They wear a normal belt that you or I would wear.  The plain clothes holster fits on this belt.  Granted I have limited knowledge of this.  My father was a DC police officer, then later became a detective so I have seen him in both uniform and plain clothes.  The plain clothes officers don't carry all the stuff a uniform officer would carry!


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hit the dog with what?  His gun?  Wouldn't that be even worse?  I see the headlines now!  Police officer kills innocent bystander because of an accidental discharge of his weapon while trying to beat a dog!


He could have punched him if he was in that much harm. He did have an open hand. :shrug:


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> Right.  Because it's in a holster!  The pepper spray, when on a "gun belt" is also in a holster!






Tom, 

There is just simply no excuse for him to have shot the dog at a residence in which he had ran calls at before.  He was aware there was a dog there.  He had 2 other dog incidents yet chose not to carry pepper spray?  It isn’t like it is heavy to carry.  He walked past a dog on a leash.  Why?  It was a child support warrant, not a warrant in which public safety was an issue.  

Why are you gunning at discrediting the publics concern?  Do you have a personal interest in all of this? Max’s owners have the right to have their questions and concerns address by the Charles County Sheriff’s Office because in the court of public opinion, it doesn’t look good.


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> With his foot or even kneed the dog..Ugh


 Wasn't the dog biting his leg?  Maybe he did first try to kick the dog or knee the dog?  We don't know because we weren't there!  But if the dog is biting his leg, I think the option of kneeing the dog or hitting it with your foot are out the window!


----------



## Pandora

Like it was mentioned earlier, they need to post a big 'ole picture of this wound.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Ok.  A gun belt and a "belt" are two different things.  Usually people who serve warrants are in plain clothes and do not wear a gun belt.  They wear a normal belt that you or I would wear.  The plain clothes holster fits on this belt.  Granted I have limited knowledge of this.  My father was a DC police officer, then later became a detective so I have seen him in both uniform and plain clothes.  The plain clothes officers don't carry all the stuff a uniform officer would carry!



So he could have been wearing pepper spray since he had a "belt" on?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Wasn't the dog biting his leg?  Maybe he did first try to kick the dog or knee the dog?  We don't know because we weren't there!  But if the dog is biting his leg, I think the option of kneeing the dog or hitting it with your foot are out the window!



Does he only have 1 leg?


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> There is just simply no excuse for him to have shot the dog at a residence in which he had ran calls at before.  He was aware there was a dog there.  He had 2 other dog incidents yet chose not to carry pepper spray?  It isn’t like it is heavy to carry.  He walked past a dog on a leash.  Why?  It was a child support warrant, not a warrant in which public safety was an issue.
> 
> Why are you gunning at discrediting the publics concern?  Do you have a personal interest in all of this? Max’s owners have the right to have their questions and concerns address by the Charles County Sheriff’s Office because in the court of public opinion, it doesn’t look good.


 I absolutely agree with you!  Allow the investigation to be completed before we pass judgement!  I have no interest what so ever in this!  I see the other side though.  I would say the same to those who are condeming this guy without a proper investigation.  Don't pass judgement!  This is tragic that a family pet is dead!  But I think it would be even more tragic if a police officer, a mothers son, possibly a husband or father, were mauled to death by an attacking dog!  

As far as him shooting a dog where he ran calls before?  Do we think he intentionally allowed himself to be bit by the dog so he could shoot it?


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 05-20-2007 07:26 PM The ones that assault police officers by biting them!
> It is okay that he's killed 3 dogs? What are the odds that he's been "attacked" by 3 dogs in 7 years? I think he's a dumbass that puts himself in harms way too much. And no, going in a dog's territory when it is chained up is not part of the job when serving a warrant.


 Could you direct me to where I can learn about the other dogs he shot?  Where did this information come from?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> I absolutely agree with you!  Allow the investigation to be completed before we pass judgement!  I have no interest what so ever in this!  I see the other side though.  I would say the same to those who are condeming this guy without a proper investigation.  Don't pass judgement!  This is tragic that a family pet is dead!  But I think it would be even more tragic if a police officer, a mothers son, possibly a husband or father, were mauled to death by an attacking dog!
> 
> As far as him shooting a dog where he ran calls before?  Do we think he intentionally allowed himself to be bit by the dog so he could shoot it?



The dog was tied up....*cough*


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> As far as him shooting a dog where he ran calls before?  Do we think he intentionally allowed himself to be bit by the dog so he could shoot it?




I think the officer is afraid of dogs and made a decision in poor judgment.


----------



## sockgirl77

Pandora said:
			
		

> I think the officer is afraid of dogs.


He either needs to go to a shrink to get over the fear or get a new job (if he still has one).


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> The dog was tied up....*cough*


 The officer was bit...*cough* ehh hem!


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> Could you direct me to where I can learn about the other dogs he shot?  Where did this information come from?


Newspapers. News on TV. From an informant that works or has worked with him.


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> Could you direct me to where I can learn about the other dogs he shot?  Where did this information come from?




 The spokesperson for the Charles County Sheriff's Office made that statement on the news.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> The officer was bit...*cough* ehh hem!



That's what happens when you are somewhere you shouldn't be, dogs territory. He had no reason to knock on more doors..IMO


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> The spokesperson for the Charles County Sheriff's Office made that statement on the news.


 Thanks!


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> The officer was bit...*cough* ehh hem!



You say mauled to death? By a dog that is tied up? Ok, sure...


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> You say mauled to death? By a dog that is tied up? Ok, sure...


 Once the dog has hold of you......


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> Once the dog has hold of you......



Still don't have to shoot it 7 times, come on.


----------



## sockgirl77

tom88 said:
			
		

> Once the dog has hold of you......


Oh puhleeze. If the officer was really attacked the damn pictures would have surfaced by now. He is going to do anything to clear his name.


----------



## tom88

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> Oh puhleeze. If the officer was really attacked the damn pictures would have surfaced by now. He is going to do anything to clear his name.


 I don't know if it is him or if it his department!  I sure wouldn't make any public statements with the way people have been talking about suing me!  It seems that most have already made up their mind without using rational thinking, but more emotional thinking!


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't know if it is him or if it his department!  I sure wouldn't make any public statements with the way people have been talking about suing me!  It seems that most have already made up their mind without using rational thinking, but more emotional thinking!



If I wasn't guilty or  I had a reason to kill the dog, then yes I would have made a statement by now, that's just me.


----------



## tom88

I wouldn't make any statement at all!  People misinterpet things all the time!  I would save it for a time when an impartial judge or jury could listen to all the facts!


----------



## Bustem' Down

tom88 said:
			
		

> I wouldn't make any statement at all!  People misinterpet things all the time!  I would save it for a time when an impartial judge or jury could listen to all the facts!


That's no fun.  We here in the forums like to jump to wildly irrational conclusions.


----------



## missperky

Bustem' Down said:
			
		

> That's no fun.  We here in the forums like to jump to wildly irrational conclutions.



Hush. Don't ruin it.


----------



## Dork

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't know if it is him or if it his department!  I sure wouldn't make any public statements with the way people have been talking about suing me!  It seems that most have already made up their mind without using rational thinking, but more emotional thinking!



From what I read here, it does seem like the deputy over reacted but the key words are "from what I read here."  You are right.  This needs to be played out though the department and the courts, not the media or on forums.  It would be really stupid for the deputy to make any kind of statement to the media.  They don't always report things the way they should be reported.  What story would sell papers?  The one that showed an officer doing nothing wrong or one that shows an officer murdering a poor helpless animal.  I would be the sheriff's office doesn't allow the deputies to speak directly to the media because of spin they tend to put on the information they get.  If you believe everything you read in the news, I would like to sell you some ocean front property in Kansas, cheap!  or you must be related to Forestal.


----------



## camily

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> Yet this is the 3rd dog that he has killed in the past 7 years? :shrug:


I wasn't there. No one else was. Yes I know Chris long and I am NOT saying he is perfect. There is alot I knw about him. BUT. I would never say he is "aggressive". You are not thr cop and not placed in his situation.


----------



## Hokieman

No excuse, a trained cop, no one home on three tries, walking by the dog, ignorant to a barking dog on a leash who was on a leash until after the shooting, no respect for property or the owner's or the owner's dog.  If you are in a dogs reach, you are invading his property, I suspect yelling at the dog, man in uniform, you do NOT turn your back on a dog that can reach you, how stupid is that.  Nothing will bring this family member back and with such a minor bite, done by a scared dog, the cop must have simply lost it.  If a 125 pound dog meant harm it would have been a lot worse than a bandaide, as they say the dog was doing what was the right thing, the cop did a devastating bad thing and I hope he is more than punished for it.  to call back up, animal control, etc when the dog is bleeding to death is even worse, hiding his mistake I'm figuring.


----------



## chernmax

What a bullsh!t excuse for shabby police work...


----------



## chernmax

camily said:
			
		

> I wasn't there. No one else was. Yes I know Chris long and I am NOT saying he is perfect. There is alot I knw about him. BUT. I would never say he is "aggressive". You are not thr cop and not placed in his situation.



If you weren't there, then what are you defending???


----------



## Coventry17

camily said:
			
		

> I know this cop personally. He is NOT at all a mean "dog killer". I will defend him until the end. He is a great man with a great family. Very gentle actually. I have known the family for over three years.




Sometimes good people do bad things.


----------



## Coventry17

tom88 said:
			
		

> The officer was bit...*cough* ehh hem!




The word is "bitten"... and no, he was not.  The dog lunged and snapped at him, but never actually bit him.


----------



## chernmax

Coventry17 said:
			
		

> The word is "bitten"... and no, he was not.  The dog lunged and snapped at him, but never actually bit him.



I heard the paramedics didn't want to waste a band-aid in the so called bite wound...


----------



## Coventry17

The officer came to the house, ticked off that he had to drive out to the middle of nowhere to deliver a warrant.  He goes to all the doors he can find, because there's no way he wants to have to drive out here again.  It's probably the end of his shift and he should've been home an hour ago.  Dog lunges at him and it's the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.  He shoots said dog SEVEN TIMES.  That's not self defence, people, that's rage.


----------



## krazd_kat

I hope the truth comes out soon.  I can't imagine the grief the family is feeling and I have to be honest I have less than any sympathy for the officer, judging from the story that has been reported.

You come to my property, my dogs will bark and if you have any smarts, you will be scared, they are all contained so they can't bite, but even so, no matter who you are, or why you are on my property, you have NO BUSINESS getting close enough to claim self defense, they are warning you loud and clear that you are not welcome on their property.  Unless I committed murder, find another way to reach me.

This officer and the department owes the public an answer.  Someone that reacts this way, has no business "protecting the public".  (Again, only going on the reported facts)


----------



## tagryn

Two things that don't add up for me:

* The family says their son with the warrant on him does not live there (and is estranged from them?), but in the same email says their son came by and was the first to find the dog. I'm hoping this isn't talking about the same person, because if not it sure sounds like the police had justified reason to think he was living there, if he stopped by regularly.

* Police usually are trained that pulling the gun is the measure of last resort, if for no other reason than ricochets can go in any direction and hit bystanders at a distance. Shooting seven times, regardless of whether you hit anything, is an automatic procedural inquiry in most departments AFAIK, and its a hassle officers prefer to avoid if at all possible. Its possible the cop saw a dog growling on a leash and decided to unload on it just because he hated dogs, but not likely considering the consequences.

Like others have said, I'm sure there's more to this story than what the media has covered.


----------



## sockgirl77

tagryn said:
			
		

> Two things that don't add up for me:
> 
> * The family says their son with the warrant on him does not live there (and is estranged from them?), but in the same email says their son came by and was the first to find the dog. I'm hoping this isn't talking about the same person, because if not it sure sounds like the police had justified reason to think he was living there, if he stopped by regularly.
> 
> * Police usually are trained that pulling the gun is the measure of last resort, if for no other reason than ricochets can go in any direction and hit bystanders at a distance. Shooting seven times, regardless of whether you hit anything, is an automatic procedural inquiry in most departments AFAIK, and its a hassle officers prefer to avoid if at all possible. Its possible the cop saw a dog growling on a leash and decided to unload on it just because he hated dogs, but not likely considering the consequences.
> 
> Like others have said, I'm sure there's more to this story than what the media has covered.


Different son.


----------



## Hokieman

That was their other son that came by during the incident not the one they were after.


----------



## missperky

missperky said:
			
		

> Does he only have 1 leg?



Charles County officer ... 05-21-2007 12:47 PM Please tell me you're acting stupid like this just to keep the entertainment value of this thread. I'd had to lose all respect for you if you're not play-acting here.


Uh huh sure..


----------



## Amanda53772

This is soooooo terrible.Charles county police get more and more disappointing everyday.I absolutely agree the dog was protecting the home.I think that police officer should have serious actions against him if ya get down to it.......it's murder.....Sharon, Joe my heart truely goes out to the both of you...my mom ( barbara ) told me about this and i think it's horrible

Amanda Cox








			
				allan1058 said:
			
		

> Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...
> 
> http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> 
> 
> Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon & Joe Mattia
> Hughesville
> 301-274-3434 (Home)
> 301-848-9446 (Cell)


----------



## camily

Amanda53772 said:
			
		

> This is soooooo terrible.Charles county police get more and more disappointing everyday.I absolutely agree the dog was protecting the home.I think that police officer should have serious actions against him if ya get down to it.......it's murder.....Sharon, Joe my heart truely goes out to the both of you...my mom ( barbara ) told me about this and i think it's horrible
> 
> Amanda Cox


What is your middle name?


----------



## Coventry17

Anita


----------



## camily

Coventry17 said:
			
		

> Anita


 There were so many to choose from.


----------



## BadGirl

Re:  Amanda Cox


			
				camily said:
			
		

> What is your middle name?





			
				Coventry17 said:
			
		

> Anita


----------



## camily

BadGirl said:
			
		

> Re:  Amanda Cox


How about Sharon?
Or Sofonda?


----------



## marybek

I have been reading through these posts and this whole thing makes me want to share my story. I don't post much but here goes. When I was 22, many years ago, my brothers family dog (a german shepard) who had always been pleasant attacked me for no known reason. I suffered over 200 stiches in my legs, abdomen, arms and face. I have been disfigured for a number of years, and have had numerous operations to attempt to correct some of my obvious injuries. People stare at me all the time! 
When this happened, after trying to pull the dog off, my brother began to beat the normally calm freindly dog with a pipe to get him off of me. It was several more minutes before the dog relented and ran away. 
I don't know if the officer was right to be where he was or not, but I am happy he didn't suffer the same fate I have had to endure for too too many years!


----------



## missperky

marybek said:
			
		

> I have been reading through these posts and this whole thing makes me want to share my story. I don't post much but here goes. When I was 22, many years ago, my brothers family dog (a german shepard) who had always been pleasant attacked me for no known reason. I suffered over 200 stiches in my legs, abdomen, arms and face. I have been disfigured for a number of years, and have had numerous operations to attempt to correct some of my obvious injuries. People stare at me all the time!
> When this happened, after trying to pull the dog off, my brother began to beat the normally calm freindly dog with a pipe to get him off of me. It was several more minutes before the dog relented and ran away.
> I don't know if the officer was right to be where he was or not, but I am happy he didn't suffer the same fate I have had to endure for too too many years!



Was the dog that bit you at large or tied up?


----------



## smcop

missperky said:
			
		

> Was the dog that bit you at large or tied up?


 Ouch!  Thats a pretty brutal question Miss Perky!  Wow!


----------



## missperky

smcop said:
			
		

> Ouch!  Thats a pretty brutal question Miss Perky!  Wow!



Why? It's just a question. Difference in a dog at large biting you and a dog chained up...:shrug:


----------



## sgt_turmoil

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This officer is saying that the dog attacked him.
> I know that if my dog was not tied and someone pulled up in a car, that
> dog would be barking like hell and around to the front of the house before the guy got out of the car.  What the heck was this cop doing trapesing around this gentleman's property serving a warrant.  Knock on the front door and if there ain't nobody there, LEAVE!
> 
> A six year old could tell this was a crock from the get go.  And this guy (from the news report on TV) was involved with two other shootings of dogs.  This guy needs to be investigated and the sheriff needs to ask why these people are roaming around the outside of a house, when clearly there is no one home.
> 
> If the dog was tied, a good vet would be able to tell if there was stress caused by the dog tugging on the lead.  If the owner provided documentation that the dog had rabies shots (and if I was the owner), I would have sicked another 10 rottweilers on the guy, telling me he has to take my dog for rabies and they need the head.  What a line of Bull$$$$.
> 
> I hope the owner digs up Johnny Cochran and SUES THE LIVING S$$t out of the ENTIRE DEPARTMENT!





i think the entire dept needs to be investigated.  Im in the military and have been offered a job in all three counties in southern maryland and turned them all down.  its clear there is something wrong and something needs to be done.  first off you dont serve warrants by going to someones back door or side door or whatever. if the dog was out front he just could have waited or called amimal control to restrain the dog to serve the warrant but that doenst help him either if he was at the wrong place.  If this was an incident in the military he would be barred from reenlistment, reduction by two pay grades and charged with unnecessary use of force with a deadly weapon.  cant get him with manslaughter cause the dog wasnt a man.  then they would take half of his pay until his contract was up and give it to the family as compensation.  I would then go for conduct unbecoming an officer if any of the above charges stuck.


----------



## jetmonkey

this is an outrage


----------



## SoMDGirl42

marybek said:
			
		

> I have been reading through these posts and this whole thing makes me want to share my story. I don't post much but here goes. When I was 22, many years ago, my brothers family dog (a german shepard) who had always been pleasant attacked me for no known reason. I suffered over 200 stiches in my legs, abdomen, arms and face. I have been disfigured for a number of years, and have had numerous operations to attempt to correct some of my obvious injuries. People stare at me all the time!
> When this happened, after trying to pull the dog off, my brother began to beat the normally calm freindly dog with a pipe to get him off of me. It was several more minutes before the dog relented and ran away.
> I don't know if the officer was right to be where he was or not, but I am happy he didn't suffer the same fate I have had to endure for too too many years!


I wish the dog would have chewed his a$$ up! What would the cop do? Kill him? Then it would have been justified to shoot the dog (7 FRICKIN TIMES!)that was tied up, protecting his home, which was his job!

For all the cops out there. Thank you for protecting us, serving us, putting your life on the line for our safety. If you ever show up at my house to serve a warrant, which I'm hoping will never happen, I have three dogs. Please don't kill my friends. Save your bullets for the real threats out there. I know some folks I'd like to see you put a cap in.


----------



## dhartmann_2004

This is so sad. I'd be one pissed owner If this happened to one of my dogs. I can't imagine what the family is feeling. I had a German Shephard and I was cleaning out our pool and my German Shephard collapsed in front of her water bucket and we had the animal shelter come to the house and they took her away, It was the most devistating moment in my life because at the time I was 9. I will always think it was the people across the street from us that made her eat something bad. So it goes to show that people are rude to other people's animals and dont give a crap who you are, even If they come off as being the best people in the world. I feel sorry for the family in Hughesville= I dont feel sorry for the Deputy because he has been through this situation three other times before this one occured.


----------



## bucky md

Here is the article from St. Mary's Today

By Sean Rice
ST. MARY'S TODAY

   HUGHESVILLE - The family dog of a Hughesville family was shot numerous times and killed May 15, when a deputy responded to a house to serve a warrant.

   The man to receive the warrant has not lived at the house for several years, say owners Sharon and Joe Mattia , and the home was completely unoccupied except for their German Shepherd chained up outside.

   Police were looking apparently for Sharon's step-son, she believes for a child support issue. A son who lives at home arrived right after the shooting to find the decimated dog a pool of blood on their concrete walkway.

   Charles County Sheriff Office Maj. Joseph Montminy told ST. MARY'S TODAY the incident is undergoing a thorough investigation, as occurs whenever a deputy discharges his weapon in defense.

   The wanted suspect's last known address was at the Mattia household, Montminy said.

   "In this case the deputy was attacked by the dog and bitten on the leg, ... to protect himself he shot at the dog until the threat was over, and apparently it took more than one shot," Montminy said.

   "Anytime a deputy discharges his weapon we do an investigation ... and we'll look at exactly what happened," Major Montminy said, adding he was no further information to release until the investigation is complete.

   Sharon Mattia said officials on the scene refused to allow her to keep her dog, citing the need to have the corpse tested for rabies. After further questioning she was told the dog's body will be available, but the dog's head was cut off as apparently required for rabies testing, and she cannot get the head back.

   On Wednesday afternoon the couple filed an official complaint at the sheriff's office.

   Nearby residents have been stopping by to give the family support in response to their protest as shown at right, others sound their horns in support.



My thoughts are this.  The dog was tied up. Obviously no one was home.  There was NO need for that officer to shoot that dog.  He needs to be fired.  The family needs to sue the ass off of the dept.  I understand that they need to err on the side of caution but that officer was OUT OF LINE.  They provided proof that the rabies vaccinations were up to date.. How this family was treated was LUDICROUS!! I feel so sorry for this family and if they do sue they deserve every penny they get.  Something has to be done so this does not happen again. If they come onto a property with a dog that is hostile... that is what the animal warden is for tranqualize them... I have pets myself and if this would have would have happened to my dog.......I would call peta, spca, Hell.. by the time I was done .....I would  probably own charles county. Not literally..  I'm just using that as a point.    Obviously.... common sense was not used here.


----------



## Bay_Kat

My thoughts are this.  The dog was tied up.  There was NO need for that officer to shoot that dog.  He needs to be fired.  The family needs to sue the ass off of the dept.  I understand that they need to err on the side of caution but that officer was OUT OF LINE.  They provided proof that the rabies vaccinations were up to date.. How this family was treated was LUDICROUS!! I feel so sorry for this family and if  they do sue they deserve every penny they get.  Something has to be done so this does not happen again. If they come onto a property with a dog that is hostile... that is what the animal warden is for.. Oh thats right they only work monday through friday and trying to get in touch with them on the weekend is near impossible.[/QUOTE]

May 15 was a Tuesday, sounds like it was fairly early in the day.  There is no reason for animal control to not be available.  They would have come out, restrained the dog, let the officer check around to see there was no one home and then he could go about his business.  He wanted to take matters into his own hands and I'll be he is regretting that decision and will always.


----------



## kimmiekay98

I dont agree with what happened here. The officer should have used non-leathal force, or just left the dog alone. 
Now as far as testing for rabies, yes the head does need to be submitted to the health department (the brain is tested) and no you cannot get the head back afterwards.  Even with proof of utd rabies vaccs, they still need to test since no vaccine is 100% failproof and since Rabies is transmittible to humans and FATAL in most cases.  Not a pretty thing to think about, but its the way its done. (and in case you are wondering, yes I know what I'm talking about since I work in a vets and have had to cut the heads off pets before....)


----------



## dawn

An article about Max is in the Maryland Independent (Wednesday's edition)!  

FRONT PAGE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## oldnavy

sgt_turmoil said:
			
		

> Im in the military and have been offered a job in all three counties in southern maryland and turned them all down.



what in the world does that have to do with anything in this situation?


----------



## FrankBama1234

*Enough already!*



			
				oldnavy said:
			
		

> what in the world does that have to do with anything in this situation?


 
OK. All you lawyers types and Perry Mason wannabe's listen up. The dog's owner's son has been using this address for all his court related paperwork. (It is public record at the court house, go look if you don't believe me). An officer has every right to step on your property while investigating a crime, looking for wanted/missing persons etc. So get over it already. There is nothing in any law book that prohibits this. Any reasonable person will conclude that Officer Long did not wake up on this day and say, "today, I'm going to murder a dog". Get real. Police Officers are one of the most highly trained people in the world. Ofc. Long shot this animal out of fear. It is an unfortunate incident, but the officer has a RIGHT to protect himself. The dog was following his natural instinct to protect his territory, and that is commendable. But if you read the St. Mary's Today paper, it sounds as if Long was on a mission to kill this dog. Police officers who serve warrants are facing dangerous situations every day. Think about it: everyone they come in contact with needs to be put in handcuffs. As for the officer going around the side and to the back of the house, he was DOING HIS JOB. How many wanted people do you think answer the front door when you knock? Maybe they will run out the back. Maybe the guy is working in the backyard. It is good sound police work. I retired from a sheriff's office down south and the most dangerous part of my job was serving warrants. This officer does not deserve this. One more thing, if the owner does not want the police on his property, tell his son to turn himself in or bring him in when he files one of his complaints. And, tell him to stop using his address. Just my opinion.......


----------



## oldnavy

*Well, there you have it.....*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> OK. All you lawyers types and Perry Mason wannabe's listen up. The dog's owner's son has been using this address for all his court related paperwork. (It is public record at the court house, go look if you don't believe me). An officer has every right to step on your property while investigating a crime, looking for wanted/missing persons etc. So get over it already. There is nothing in any law book that prohibits this. Any reasonable person will conclude that Officer Long did not wake up on this day and say, "today, I'm going to murder a dog". Get real. Police Officers are one of the most highly trained people in the world. Ofc. Long shot this animal out of fear. It is an unfortunate incident, but the officer has a RIGHT to protect himself. The dog was following his natural instinct to protect his territory, and that is commendable. But if you read the St. Mary's Today paper, it sounds as if Long was on a mission to kill this dog. Police officers who serve warrants are facing dangerous situations every day. Think about it: everyone they come in contact with needs to be put in handcuffs. As for the officer going around the side and to the back of the house, he was DOING HIS JOB. How many wanted people do you think answer the front door when you knock? Maybe they will run out the back. Maybe the guy is working in the backyard. It is good sound police work. I retired from a sheriff's office down south and the most dangerous part of my job was serving warrants. This officer does not deserve this. One more thing, if the owner does not want the police on his property, tell his son to turn himself in or bring him in when he files one of his complaints. And, tell him to stop using his address. Just my opinion.......



he retired from the sherrif's office down south and says "enough already" and that officer long did his job properly.  That makes it official, time for us to move on and not discuss the current events in our area.  Thank you sir for your time and willingness to enlighten us.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> OK. All you lawyers types and Perry Mason wannabe's listen up. The dog's owner's son has been using this address for all his court related paperwork. (It is public record at the court house, go look if you don't believe me). An officer has every right to step on your property while investigating a crime, looking for wanted/missing persons etc. So get over it already. There is nothing in any law book that prohibits this. Any reasonable person will conclude that Officer Long did not wake up on this day and say, "today, I'm going to murder a dog". Get real. Police Officers are one of the most highly trained people in the world. Ofc. Long shot this animal out of fear. It is an unfortunate incident, but the officer has a RIGHT to protect himself. The dog was following his natural instinct to protect his territory, and that is commendable. But if you read the St. Mary's Today paper, it sounds as if Long was on a mission to kill this dog. Police officers who serve warrants are facing dangerous situations every day. Think about it: everyone they come in contact with needs to be put in handcuffs. As for the officer going around the side and to the back of the house, he was DOING HIS JOB. How many wanted people do you think answer the front door when you knock? Maybe they will run out the back. Maybe the guy is working in the backyard. It is good sound police work. I retired from a sheriff's office down south and the most dangerous part of my job was serving warrants. This officer does not deserve this. One more thing, if the owner does not want the police on his property, tell his son to turn himself in or bring him in when he files one of his complaints. And, tell him to stop using his address. Just my opinion.......




Guess you forgot that Officer Long knew there was a dog on the property, and gee, if you knock on the front door and someone runs out the back, I think they would have been long gone, but the time you arrived to the back door if you stoped and tried the side door first!  and if he was such a volient crimimal that required the use of a deadly weapon to be used, one would think that the cops would tag team and send two, one for the front door and one for the back.  So Mr. Sherriff, I am sorry, but I dont beleive he was doing his job, and for the record -- I know a police officer that served warrants for CHILD SUPPORT I dont know the exact number of years, but I have known him for 13 years and he was promoted approximately 4 years ago, but I know he was doing it for at least nine years years in Charles county before he was move to a higher rank and you know what -- he never ever once killed  dog! NOT ONCE!

And also for the record, i know that all police offiers are not bad, there are many good ones that just once in a while have a bad seed in the bunch, but I am sorry to shoot your gun 7 times at a dog is EXCESSIVE and not justified.  I dont care to hear that officers are trained to use force until the threat ends, because sir, if a child had walked out of that house while the officer was killing the dog, you best believe that officer would have the mind sense to stop shooting when a child could have been in danger, so no I dont beleive that at all, I beleive he should have been prepared with mace or tazer knowing there was a dog present.  


and you quote of "Get real. Police Officers are one of the most highly trained people in the world."   then why in gods name does it take seven shots from a 357 to kill a dog or were you not meaning that they were highly trained in shooting?


----------



## bohman

oldnavy said:
			
		

> he retired from the sherrif's office down south and says "enough already" and that officer long did his job properly.  That makes it official, time for us to move on and not discuss the current events in our area.  Thank you sir for your time and willingness to enlighten us.



I didn't read anything in Frank's post that sounded unreasonable.  :shrug:  It does seem, from reading this thread, that a surprisingly large amount of people assume that many cops are just out there looking for stuff to shoot.  And those posters sound awfully damned paranoid.

But I don't know any of the people involved, so what the hell.  Maybe this cop does like shooting dogs.  I wouldn't bet on it, though.


----------



## dawn

bohman said:
			
		

> I didn't read anything in Frank's post that sounded unreasonable.  :shrug:  It does seem, from reading this thread, that a surprisingly large amount of people assume that many cops are just out there looking for stuff to shoot.  And those posters sound awfully damned paranoid.
> 
> But I don't know any of the people involved, so what the hell.  Maybe this cop does like shooting dogs.  I wouldn't bet on it, though.




No I wouldnt say paranoid, but I will say that I have a 170 pound dog, I live on six acres and my dog runs free on my land daily.   I have an undesirable ex that was constantly in and out of trouble, with the law and with child support.  I have long since broke up with him (over 5 years), but Charles county police STILL l come to my house looking for him (and this is not his last address on record, proven fact).   I have a an ex-roommate that also fell behind on child support at times and yes the police did come to my house for him as well, not since he moved out, but before they did.  My concern and outrage is that my dog is on my property and he is a big dog and yes if you drive down my driveway he will come to meet you, he is not a mean dog, never has been and never will be but looks like a huge dog-- if the police come down there to serve a warrant on someone that no longer lives at my house, will they do the same to my dog?


----------



## bohman

dawn said:
			
		

> My concern and outrage is that my dog is on my property and he is a big dog and yes if you drive down my driveway he will come to meet you, he is not a mean dog, never has been and never will be but looks like a huge dog-- if the police come down there to serve a warrant on someone that no longer lives at my house, will they do the same to my dog?



Those are valid concerns.  I didn't mean to single you out; just commenting on how quick some folks were to assume the worst.


----------



## protectmd

A. If serving warrants is so dangerous why would they send just 1 officer??? Sounds like there needs to be a policy review in order. 

B. If the residence was really dangerous, the cop wouldn't have made it out of his car in all honesty he would have been dead in the front yard... In my experience its easier to hold a fort than it is to take one, and the homeowner has homefield advantage here... But that wasn't the case... so after all serving this warrant certainly wasn't a life or death situation. Nor is any other warrant they serve using just 1 cop. 

C. Sounds like he made a poor judgement call yes, and he should pay for it somehow. People don't hate cops, but they do hate corruption, coverups and conspiracies. If they are smart they will make a public example out of him to some degree, to prove that cops aren't above the law, and that they too can be held accountable. Maybe not lose his job, but he definately needs to re visit the range at the least.... he's an extremely poor shot, and if it were a person, i'd have to say they would have gotten him first. They need to at least make a public apology to show that the sheriffs office is human too, and apart of the community, not hunting chained up animals with their issued ammo lol. 

D. There is something seriously wrong with things down here. For some reason, the police organizations are "shrouded in secrecy" and our tax dollars are spent hiding what really goes on, between investigations, screwups, and corruption. This county could have an auxillary police force... theres alot of other places that do that, it gets the citizens more involved in what goes on.... and starts bringing some common sense to hired guns patrolling the streets with a finger on the trigger, not straight and off the trigger. Why we spend resources looking for spraypaint vandals instead of real criminals... who know's... I actually think they should put a civilian on the hiring board for the police agencies... so that the citizens may have more of an option in who's hired, and quit recycling sheriffs to force change.


----------



## FrankBama1234

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be too politically incorrect. Funny how no one suggested the son stop using his dad's address. All this could have been avoided if the son just paid his child support. What any good father should do. The owner appears to care more about his dog than his son.....just my opinion.


----------



## missperky

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be too politically incorrect. Funny how no one suggested the son stop using his dad's address. All this could have been avoided if the son just paid his child support. What any good father should do. The owner appears to care more about his dog than his son.....just my opinion.



How is it the owners fault that the son used their address?


----------



## Bay_Kat

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be too politically incorrect. Funny how no one suggested the son stop using his dad's address. All this could have been avoided if the son just paid his child support. What any good father should do. *The owner appears to care more about his dog than his son.....just my opinion.*



Hate to say it but it sounds like the dog had more sense than the son. IMO


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be too politically incorrect. Funny how no one suggested the son stop using his dad's address. All this could have been avoided if the son just paid his child support. What any good father should do. The owner appears to care more about his dog than his son.....just my opinion.





How would you say the owner cares more about the dog than he does his son?  where do you get that opinion from?    I have been out of my dads house for over 15 years, I still have mail that goes to my dads, the problem with that is ? 

I have a friend that repos cars for a living and he has no problem going on the computer and finding out peoples correct addresses (addresses which are usually differnet than the ones the deadbeats originally list).  Now if a repo person can go in a computer and look someone up to get different addresses, they why in pray-tell cant the police do the same?


----------



## General Lee

missperky said:
			
		

> It wasn't like the dog was at large, he was tied up on his property. Maybe the cop should have went about serving the warrant differently?



Ok genius, please tell us all how you are trained in serving warrants and what would have been the correct way for him to do it. Too many people have no clue about police procedures but yet they run their mouth like they know how its done, and nothing comes out but a bunch of jibberish.

I'm not disputing the right and wrong about what the officer did. Quit relying on facts of the stupid media to voice your opinion. Thats were people go wrong.


----------



## General Lee

missperky said:
			
		

> Was the dog that bit you at large or tied up?



That shouldn't matter. A dog can still get a hold of you and maul you if its tied up or not. Come on, use some common sense.


----------



## missperky

General Lee said:
			
		

> Ok genius, please tell us all how you are trained in serving warrants and what would have been the correct way for him to do it. Too many people have no clue about police procedures but yet they run their mouth like they know how its done, and nothing comes out but a bunch of jibberish.
> 
> I'm not disputing the right and wrong about what the officer did. Quit relying on facts of the stupid media to voice your opinion. Thats were people go wrong.



I'm smart enough to stay the #### away from a dog that i do not know.


----------



## missperky

General Lee said:
			
		

> That shouldn't matter. A dog can still get a hold of you and maul you if its tied up or not. Come on, use some common sense.



It does. The dog that was tied up can only go so far. A dog at large is a different story.


----------



## missperky

Have any statements been released?


----------



## General Lee

missperky said:
			
		

> It does. The dog that was tied up can only go so far. A dog at large is a different story.



It has nothing to do with how far the dog can go. A tied up dog can still get a hold of you, knock you down, lock his jaw on you and chew the s*it out of you. All depends on how quick you can move. Sure you can get out of reach of the chain, but you got to get out of that reach first.


----------



## missperky

General Lee said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with how far the dog can go. A tied up dog can still get a hold of you, knock you down, lock his jaw on you and chew the s*it out of you. All depends on how quick you can move. Sure you can get out of reach of the chain, but you got to get out of that reach first.



Hello!! How can the dog get you, if you don't go near it?


----------



## Hello6

They get you with those puppy dog eyes...it'll wreck ya every time.


----------



## otter

General Lee said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with how far the dog can go. A tied up dog can still get a hold of you, knock you down, lock his jaw on you and chew the s*it out of you. All depends on how quick you can move. Sure you can get out of reach of the chain, but you got to get out of that reach first.



:dur:


----------



## 88stringslouie

*The stupid media*



			
				General Lee said:
			
		

> Ok genius, please tell us all how you are trained in serving warrants and what would have been the correct way for him to do it. Too many people have no clue about police procedures but yet they run their mouth like they know how its done, and nothing comes out but a bunch of jibberish.
> 
> I'm not disputing the right and wrong about what the officer did. Quit relying on facts of the stupid media to voice your opinion. Thats were people go wrong.



The "Stupid Media" bring many things to light.  There are many government operations that run amuck and trample all over the civil rights of many a citizen.
If it wasn't for the media, I wouldn't have known about seizing a citizen's property in order to build some stupid office building, shopping center, etc.

Although the liberal wacko media likes to throw fits, I am still grateful to the blog media (how I learned about this helacious travisty).  Today's paper confirmed that the owner did find 7 .357 shell casings.  I also found out that one of the bullets pierced the collar of the dog.  This guy needs to have his gun taken away and fired from the department.  We don't have to play idiot here and believe that he "fired until the threat was over".  Back before the lawyers and all the lifetime politicians, people would have taken justice in their own hands.  Personally, it pisses me off that this guy has shot 2 other dogs.

It defies common sense, and there is absolutely no explaination for what he did, and someone should pay big time.  I applaud the owner for threatening legal action against the entire department. 
1)  for allowing this dog killer to continue his charades.
2)  to not firing the guy by now.

I would advise the owner to post this travesty on the dog groups on egroups off of google.  There are many wealthy people on these lists that may take the case pro bono.  

To have anyone tell me that a loose dog (that is in the back yard) wouldn't charge to the front s when a car was pulling up. (especially how ferocious this officer claimed the dog to be).  An idiot moron could only believe this line of Bulls$$t that these people are claiming.  

I'm waiting to hear from several people off of the egroups to see if there are any attorneys that will take this case.

We need to put pressure on the whole damned department to pay through the nose for not putting this guy on unpaid administrative leave until we get a rulling from a court.  I know damned well if a cop came to my front door to serve a warrant, he sure as #### better not be roaming around on my property.  Use the front door, knock, and if no one is home, leave.

The bulls$$t story this guy is doling out is a prime example of CYA after you've been strip-searched.  He's lucky that no one was home.  They may have shot him after he shot their dog.  He should count his lucky stars.  
Just like the commie Lon Horiuchi at Ruby Ridge, shooting Weaver's wife through the head, shooting his son in the back, and killing his dog. And the corrupt, shi$$y government let this wacked out evil human being to continue on the force.  Knowing that my tax money went to pay Mr. Weaver and his family for this tyranny makes me sick.  If you all think that this crap is taking away our right to a free trial, you better think again.  Horiuchi should have been executed, and anybody that order "shoot to kill" on an innocent mother and boy is evil at best.  Just like this guy shooting this dog with the fire power of 7 .357 rounds is just as rotten and lowdown as shooting a woman through the head while holding their baby, or shooting his son in the back, as well as shooting his dog.  To claim stupidity like Horiuchi did is downright dishonest, but reflects his superiors arrogant and flippant attitude towards shooting innocent women 

The son did the right thing shooting back.  People take this aggressiveness 
seriously, and when it comes down to protecting property, it does boil down to 2nd amendment rights and preventing a tyrannical government.

Stay tuned.  There may be hell to pay over this incredibily stupid and inexcusable stunt (after shooting 2 other dogs).
Thank God the Mattias had the balls to go public with it and raise Hell!


----------



## camily

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> The "Stupid Media" bring many things to light.  There are many government operations that run amuck and trample all over the civil rights of many a citizen.
> If it wasn't for the media, I wouldn't have known about seizing a citizen's property in order to build some stupid office building, shopping center, etc.
> 
> Although the liberal wacko media likes to throw fits, I am still grateful to the blog media (how I learned about this helacious travisty).  Today's paper confirmed that the owner did find 7 .357 shell casings.  I also found out that one of the bullets pierced the collar of the dog.  This guy needs to have his gun taken away and fired from the department.  We don't have to play idiot here and believe that he "fired until the threat was over".  Back before the lawyers and all the lifetime politicians, people would have taken justice in their own hands.  Personally, it pisses me off that this guy has shot 2 other dogs.
> 
> It defies common sense, and there is absolutely no explaination for what he did, and someone should pay big time.  I applaud the owner for threatening legal action against the entire department.
> 1)  for allowing this dog killer to continue his charades.
> 2)  to not firing the guy by now.
> 
> I would advise the owner to post this travesty on the dog groups on egroups off of google.  There are many wealthy people on these lists that may take the case pro bono.
> 
> To have anyone tell me that a loose dog (that is in the back yard) wouldn't charge to the front s when a car was pulling up. (especially how ferocious this officer claimed the dog to be).  An idiot moron could only believe this line of Bulls$$t that these people are claiming.
> 
> I'm waiting to hear from several people off of the egroups to see if there are any attorneys that will take this case.
> 
> We need to put pressure on the whole damned department to pay through the nose for not putting this guy on unpaid administrative leave until we get a rulling from a court.  I know damned well if a cop came to my front door to serve a warrant, he sure as #### better not be roaming around on my property.  Use the front door, knock, and if no one is home, leave.
> 
> The bulls$$t story this guy is doling out is a prime example of CYA after you've been strip-searched.  He's lucky that no one was home.  They may have shot him after he shot their dog.  He should count his lucky stars.
> Just like the commie Lon Horiuchi at Ruby Ridge, shooting Weaver's wife through the head, shooting his son in the back, and killing his dog.
> 
> The son did the right thing shooting back.  People take this aggressiveness
> seriously, and when it comes down to protecting property, it does boil down to 2nd amendment rights and preventing a tyrannical government.
> 
> Stay tuned.  There may be hell to pay over this incredibilly stupid and unexcusable stunt (after shooting 2 other dogs).
> Thank God the Mattias had the balls to go public with it and raise Hell about it.


I think that was longer than the Unibombers Manifesto. Wait, that was the wrong word wasn't it Vrai?


----------



## 88stringslouie

*What do you expect?*



			
				camily said:
			
		

> I think that was longer than the Unibombers Manifesto. Wait, that was the wrong word wasn't it Vrai?



Please explain to me the flaws in my argument?
Before "7 on Your Side" brought forth the information that this guy shot 2 other dogs, had you heard about it? (unless, of course you work for the department)

This is a very serious manner, as this guy was firing rounds into a dog, these shots could have richocheted into children, property, etc.

I hope like hell they review the procedures of serving warrants and reassure the public that these "out of control officers", roaming around private property and shooting dogs will be either re-trained or fired from the force.


----------



## protectmd

> *Originally Posted by FrankBama1234*
> 
> OK. *All you lawyers types and Perry Mason wannabe's listen up*. The dog's owner's son has been using this address for all his court related paperwork. (It is public record at the court house, go look if you don't believe me). An officer has every right to step on your property while investigating a crime, looking for wanted/missing persons etc. So get over it already. There is nothing in any law book that prohibits this. Any reasonable person will conclude that Officer Long did not wake up on this day and say, "today, I'm going to murder a dog". Get real. Police Officers are one of the most highly trained people in the world. Ofc. Long shot this animal out of fear. It is an unfortunate incident, but the officer has a RIGHT to protect himself. The dog was following his natural instinct to protect his territory, and that is commendable. But if you read the St. Mary's Today paper, it sounds as if Long was on a *mission to kill this dog*. Police officers who serve warrants are facing dangerous situations every day. Think about it: everyone they come in contact with needs to be put in handcuffs. As for the officer going around the side and to the back of the house, he was *DOING HIS JOB*. How many wanted people do you think answer the front door when you knock? Maybe they will run out the back. Maybe the guy is working in the backyard. *It is good sound police work*. I retired from a sheriff's office down south and the most dangerous part of my job was serving warrants. This officer does not deserve this. One more thing, if the owner does not want the police on his property, tell his son to turn himself in or bring him in when he files one of his complaints. And, tell him to stop using his address. Just my opinion......



Heres a clue for you Mr. FrankBama.....

Since im a Lawyer/Perry Mason type, you strike me as the socialist dictator type who believes that police can never do wrong, they are they are the only ones who should have guns here in the socialist republik of Maryland... and that this guy was doing his job. If you are/were in fact a cop, I would imagine that you would tolerate this type of tom foolery in your dept. and that furthermore if serving warrants was such a dangerous type of police work you would say that it requires backup, additional resources? But I guess its much easier to just discharge our weapon repeatedly into the dog. If this crap happened in the Wash DC, the cop would be gone. If this was PG county, and this happened in a neighborhood with small children playing, that would be the end of this guys career. I tell ya, ladies and gents, if the 357 can't stop a dog, we are gonna have to increase the CCCP funding to find a higher caliber! Give them Desert Eagles! Thats a mans gun right there.... should stop any dog on a leash!


----------



## 88stringslouie

well said


----------



## kom526

CCSD uses .357s?


----------



## camily

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Please explain to me the flaws in my argument?
> Before "7 on Your Side" brought forth the information that this guy shot 2 other dogs, had you heard about it? (unless, of course you work for the department)
> 
> This is a very serious manner, as this guy was firing rounds into a dog, these shots could have richocheted into children, property, etc.
> 
> I hope like hell they review the procedures of serving warrants and reassure the public that these "out of control officers", roaming around private property and shooting dogs will be either re-trained or fired from the force.


Yes, I knew about them. No, I don't work for the department. That even made me laugh to type it! 
BTW, I have had warrants served on me and they DO go all around the house. You won't believe this, but they even peek in your windows ( crazy isn't it?  ) !


----------



## General Lee

kom526 said:
			
		

> CCSD uses .357s?



No they don't. See, there goes someone posting wrong information once again.


----------



## General Lee

protectmd said:
			
		

> Heres a clue for you Mr. FrankBama.....
> 
> If this crap happened in the Wash DC, the cop would be gone. If this was PG county, and this happened in a neighborhood with small children playing, that would be the end of this guys career.



Phuuleeeease......


----------



## Bay_Kat

General Lee said:
			
		

> No they don't. See, there goes someone posting wrong information once again.



*A Charles County sheriff’s officer who shot and killed a family’s dog last week fired seven rounds from a .357-caliber pistol at the animal he said was attacking him, police confirmed Tuesday.*
This is the first paragraph from the article in Wednesday's Maryland Independent.


----------



## protectmd

LaPlata to MSP, Adam 4XX Adam 3XX for the 10-37 report a peeping tom/prowler, last seen traveling westbound on Prince Frederick Rd. from the area of Serenity Farms, driving a white newer model crown vic, has blue/white lights on top of the car, there was 1 subject driving, possibly armed....   Caller advises that he was looking in windows of her residence...


----------



## Pete

Bay_Kat said:
			
		

> *A Charles County sheriff’s officer who shot and killed a family’s dog last week fired seven rounds from a .357-caliber pistol at the animal he said was attacking him, police confirmed Tuesday.*
> This is the first paragraph from the article in Wednesday's Maryland Independent.


Isn't a .357 a 6 shot revolver?  He had to reload?


----------



## protectmd

I think 357. short is a glock round if im not mistaken, if thats the case then the pistol would be clip fed... I could be wrong. I always thought they carried Beretta 9mm, and then changed over to 40. cal? Although I could be wrong again on that, along with the other assortments of weapons they carry in their trunks


----------



## dawn

protectmd said:
			
		

> LaPlata to MSP, Adam 4XX Adam 3XX for the 10-37 report a peeping tom/prowler, last seen traveling westbound on Prince Frederick Rd. from the area of Serenity Farms, driving a white newer model crown vic, has blue/white lights on top of the car, there was 1 subject driving, possibly armed....   Caller advises that he was looking in windows of her residence...




Officer Long was actually driving a unmarked Chevy Blazer, but you got the rest right!  But giving him to much credit by calling him a peeping tom/prowler, I would have used a few more choice words to describe him!


----------



## FrankBama1234

protectmd said:
			
		

> Heres a clue for you Mr. FrankBama.....
> 
> Since im a Lawyer/Perry Mason type, you strike me as the socialist dictator type who believes that police can never do wrong, they are they are the only ones who should have guns here in the socialist republik of Maryland... and that this guy was doing his job. If you are/were in fact a cop, I would imagine that you would tolerate this type of tom foolery in your dept. and that furthermore if serving warrants was such a dangerous type of police work you would say that it requires backup, additional resources? But I guess its much easier to just discharge our weapon repeatedly into the dog. If this crap happened in the Wash DC, the cop would be gone. If this was PG county, and this happened in a neighborhood with small children playing, that would be the end of this guys career. I tell ya, ladies and gents, if the 357 can't stop a dog, we are gonna have to increase the CCCP funding to find a higher caliber! Give them Desert Eagles! Thats a mans gun right there.... should stop any dog on a leash!




Boy you couldn't be more wrong about me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and no one believes in the 2nd Amm. more than I do. Socialist Government?? Unfortunately, serving warrants is part of the job. Just like anything else in police work, sometimes you have to go it alone. Officers make routine traffic stops every day by themselves. If any of you think you can do a better job, I suggest applying for your local department, spending 6 months in the police academy, working shift work, missing children's birthdays and holidays, working weekends, wearing body armor to work...get the point. As I have said before, this incident brings to light many difficulties facing our nation's lawmen every day. Officers are expected to make split second decisions every time, and always be right. That, unfortunately just can't happen. In PG County, they average 2 police shootings a month. DC is 3.4 a month. How many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog?? Again, this could have been avoided if Junior just paid his child support!!! I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that no one was there, but Long. He, being an officer, deserves the benefit of the doubt. If that dog was biting one of your children, would your tone change??...just my opinion.


----------



## missperky

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Boy you couldn't be more wrong about me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and no one believes in the 2nd Amm. more than I do. Socialist Government?? Unfortunately, serving warrants is part of the job. Just like anything else in police work, sometimes you have to go it alone. Officers make routine traffic stops every day by themselves. If any of you think you can do a better job, I suggest applying for your local department, spending 6 months in the police academy, working shift work, missing children's birthdays and holidays, working weekends, wearing body armor to work...get the point. As I have said before, this incident brings to light many difficulties facing our nation's lawmen every day. Officers are expected to make split second decisions every time, and always be right. That, unfortunately just can't happen. In PG County, they average 2 police shootings a month. DC is 3.4 a month. How many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog?? Again, this could have been avoided if Junior just paid his child support!!! I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that no one was there, but Long. He, being an officer, deserves the benefit of the doubt. If that dog was biting one of your children, would your tone change??...just my opinion.



We aren't talking about a dog biting a child. But as a owner of 2 large dogs and kids, IF my dog bit one of my kids, yes that dog would be gone, but thats my dog on my property. I can't speak for other people.


----------



## RadioPatrol

General Lee said:
			
		

> No they don't. See, there goes someone posting wrong information once again.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_SIG


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> Officer Long was actually driving a unmarked Chevy Blazer, but you got the rest right!  But giving him to much credit by calling him a peeping tom/prowler, I would have used a few more choice words to describe him!


Actually it's a dark blue extended cab pick up. See, more misinformation.


----------



## PrchJrkr

Only Officer Long and the dog know the truth, and the dog ain't talking.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Boy you couldn't be more wrong about me. I am a lifetime member of the NRA and no one believes in the 2nd Amm. more than I do. Socialist Government?? Unfortunately, serving warrants is part of the job. Just like anything else in police work, sometimes you have to go it alone. Officers make routine traffic stops every day by themselves. If any of you think you can do a better job, I suggest applying for your local department, spending 6 months in the police academy, working shift work, missing children's birthdays and holidays, working weekends, wearing body armor to work...get the point. As I have said before, this incident brings to light many difficulties facing our nation's lawmen every day. Officers are expected to make split second decisions every time, and always be right. That, unfortunately just can't happen. In PG County, they average 2 police shootings a month. DC is 3.4 a month. How many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog?? Again, this could have been avoided if Junior just paid his child support!!! I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that no one was there, but Long. He, being an officer, deserves the benefit of the doubt. If that dog was biting one of your children, would your tone change??...just my opinion.




First off when you have the desire to become a police officer, you know the schedule from the get go, i.e. shift work, spending 6 months at the police academy, working holidays and weekends.    I used to date a police officer and we had to schedule everything around his work schedule, but Mr. Bama, they know what their schedules are months in advance, so you can plan things around accordingly.

You ask how many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog, well if a cop shot a person seven times, and it appears to be for no reason, other than the officer saying he was threaten (no proof), and if it was the third time he killed a person, well..... enough said!

And, yes maybe it could have been avoided if junior paid his child support, but I for one don't want to have to pay for anything that my son has done once he has grown and moved out of my house, so is it fair that you make that statement, no.

And, I am sorry just because he is an officer, no he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, believe it or not, there are police officers that are not saints and I think that he should be given just as much benefit as the dog, unfortunately there is only one survivor to this tragedy, and he assumed that his word would be believed just as it has always been in the past.

And I agree, we are not talking about a dog biting a child.   We are talking about a police officer that shot a chained dog 7 times.

I'm sorry Mr. Bama, the way the world is supposed to be is innocent until proven guilty, the police automatically think that a person (suspect) is guilty until proven otherwise, and at this point and time all evidence points to Officer Long as being the guilty party, (he made sure there were not witnesses around, he killed them off) (you know some cops are just bully's, I think that has been proven by police brutality many times in the past)


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> Actually it's a dark blue extended cab pick up. See, more misinformation.




Oh I forgot you are the one sleeping with Officer Long, I guess you would know best!

Well I was told it was a blazer and I sure didnt see you speak up to say it wasnt a marked car.  Regardless of what it was he was driving it was an UNMARKED TRUCK and with me living in the woods, I wouldnt open up my door for any person that drove up in a police uniform in an unmarked car -- to may crazy people out there for me to trust!


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> First off when you have the desire to become a police officer, you know the schedule from the get go, i.e. shift work, spending 6 months at the police academy, working holidays and weekends.    I used to date a police officer and we had to schedule everything around his work schedule, but Mr. Bama, they know what their schedules are months in advance, so you can plan things around accordingly.
> 
> You ask how many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog, well if a cop shot a person seven times, and it appears to be for no reason, other than the officer saying he was threaten (no proof), and if it was the third time he killed a person, well..... enough said!
> 
> And, yes maybe it could have been avoided if junior paid his child support, but I for one don't want to have to pay for anything that my son has done once he has grown and moved out of my house, so is it fair that you make that statement, no.
> 
> And, I am sorry just because he is an officer, no he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, believe it or not, there are police officers that are not saints and I think that he should be given just as much benefit as the dog, unfortunately there is only one survivor to this tragedy, and he assumed that his word would be believed just as it has always been in the past.
> 
> And I agree, we are not talking about a dog biting a child.   We are talking about a police officer that shot a chained dog 7 times.
> 
> I'm sorry Mr. Bama, the way the world is supposed to be is innocent until proven guilty, the police automatically think that a person (suspect) is guilty until proven otherwise, and at this point and time all evidence points to Officer Long as being the guilty party, (he made sure there were not witnesses around, he killed them off) (you know some cops are just bully's, I think that has been proven by police brutality many times in the past)



Why not give Long the same courtesy, innocent until proven guilty???....just my opinion.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Why not give Long the same courtesy, innocent until proven guilty???....just my opinion.



1)  Because the legal system is corrupt as hell.  This guy should be tried in a county where no one knows him, our police department, ect...
2)  The guy has a record of blowing away 2 dogs already, and has now
     mutilated another with a high powered handgun.
3)  The shooting of the two dogs never came to light until 7 on your side 
     broadcast it on TV.  If this guy is a crappy shot and has to shoot the dog                     7 times, he shouldn't have a gun.  He should have never been hired.
40 The  "good old boy" network tries to keep everything hush-hush.  Thank God, We now in a society where this kind of behavior is exposed by many different sources.


If he goes to trial, (which he definitely should, the facts from all three dog shootings should be brought out as this shows a pattern of extremely poor judgement, 

This guy endangered anyone nearby with richoceting bullets.  The department needs to come forward and discuss other policeman that have shot 3 dogs while on duty.  
A dollar to a donut says there are no policeman on the force in either LaPlata,
Wadorf, etc...that have been malicious toward animanls.


----------



## protectmd

Innocent until proven guilty. An interesting concept. Ok, so lets say that Officer Long did in fact have a good reason for shooting that dog. Perhaps the dog was about to get off the leash, or sneaking past its collar and Officer long couldn't get back to his car in time, and felt that mace wouldn't work on the dog.... so he drew his gun. fearing that the dog would rip through the chain collar, officer long fired 7 rounds into the dog. I dunno. I've played the incident out in my head several times... and not alot makes sense. 

Look, heres the problem. People want to know what the facts are... and in today's society no response is worse than perhaps a public apology, or even trying to conceal and hide the truth. Your right, I do understand to some degree what LEO's go through, having served in Iraq, and a few other places.... I can level with the whole concept of split second life changing decisions, nor have I ever walked in their shoes completely so I can't have claimed to... Im also a supporter of the constitution... and don't agree with how when I come home it gets shoved into the mud and pissed on... Every country has a flag, but only 1 has a US constitution. If citizen joe, or a bounty hunter did this, they would be publicly crucified on a cross made out of washington posts and tossed into the potomac where their remains would be posted as pictures at a PETA rally of what can happen to you (legally that is)... I do enjoy to hear when they catch criminals, but won't watch my civil rights be eroded away to make someones job easier. 

What I am asking is that people are held ACCOUNTABLE to some degree for their mistakes. Its nice that congress has passed a law allowing leo's and former leo's to carry weapons beyond their career, but here in Md. the citizens aren't afforded that opportunity, it being a "May Issue" state. And even though police aren't required to protect you (Warren Vs. District of Columbia) as long as them and the criminals have the guns, I think that the honest joe taxpayer should be entitled to speak his mind when it comes to where those bullets are flying, esp. when they are comign out of a gun of LE to ensure that my tax money is getting its money's worth because when those shots need to count, 7 isn't going to cut it. 1 shot 1 kill. 

So maybe there is a plausible explanation for this.... fine.... thats great. However I think the family of the dog, and the citizens in the community would all agree that a public apology is in order... at the least... Thats not admitting you were wrong... thats admitting the county is sorry for your loss, and that they will make an effort to attempt to replace that dog. THat would be a really sweet gesture, instead of playing coverup, and allowing signs to go high into the air with red paint explaining a different picture. In fact, its just common courtesy... to do that. Im not going to even get into procedure change, or firearms training, or anything of that nature. Im just tired of coverups, and let the issue die and be swept under a rug, and lets all hide the evidence... As community leaders they should be the first to admit when they are wrong and be given the opportunity to rectify the situation... I actually hope's he can keep his job, pending he brushes up on his pistol skills. After all everyone makes mistakes. Im just hoping that they value all versions of life and respect peoples property because the going trend isn't looking good.


----------



## FrankBama1234

So I guess the answer is to crucify Long in the papers and find him guilty of some crime just so the family can have closure on their dog. That's a great idea. Has anyone looked into the prior shootings of the other dogs? Was it just bad luck Long was there? Was a dog attacking someone? Were the dogs fighting each other? Were the dog s vicious pitbulls? Before we pass judgement we should get our facts....just my opinion.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> First off when you have the desire to become a police officer, you know the schedule from the get go, i.e. shift work, spending 6 months at the police academy, working holidays and weekends.    I used to date a police officer and we had to schedule everything around his work schedule, but Mr. Bama, they know what their schedules are months in advance, so you can plan things around accordingly.
> 
> You ask how many officers have been fired for shooting a person, much less a dog, well if a cop shot a person seven times, and it appears to be for no reason, other than the officer saying he was threaten (no proof), and if it was the third time he killed a person, well..... enough said!
> 
> And, yes maybe it could have been avoided if junior paid his child support, but I for one don't want to have to pay for anything that my son has done once he has grown and moved out of my house, so is it fair that you make that statement, no.
> 
> And, I am sorry just because he is an officer, no he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, believe it or not, there are police officers that are not saints and I think that he should be given just as much benefit as the dog, unfortunately there is only one survivor to this tragedy, and he assumed that his word would be believed just as it has always been in the past.
> 
> And I agree, we are not talking about a dog biting a child.   We are talking about a police officer that shot a chained dog 7 times.
> 
> I'm sorry Mr. Bama, the way the world is supposed to be is innocent until proven guilty, the police automatically think that a person (suspect) is guilty until proven otherwise, and at this point and time all evidence points to Officer Long as being the guilty party, (he made sure there were not witnesses around, he killed them off) (you know some cops are just bully's, I think that has been proven by police brutality many times in the past)


 Did the officer actually shoot the dog seven times?  Or was there seven shots fired.  I am asking because I don't know.  I am not making a statement.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Did the officer actually shoot the dog seven times?  Or was there seven shots fired.  I am asking because I don't know.  I am not making a statement.





I honestly dont know.  Animal control took custody of Max when he was brought back from the vet and when the Mattia's were able to retrieve Max's body back from animal control his head was not returned with the body, so I dont know how many shots actually went in Max.  I know that they found seven spent shell cases, and they did say that Max was just about decapitated.


----------



## dawn

protectmd said:
			
		

> Innocent until proven guilty. An interesting concept. Ok, so lets say that Officer Long did in fact have a good reason for shooting that dog. Perhaps the dog was about to get off the leash, or sneaking past its collar and Officer long couldn't get back to his car in time, and felt that mace wouldn't work on the dog.... so he drew his gun. fearing that the dog would rip through the chain collar, officer long fired 7 rounds into the dog. I dunno. I've played the incident out in my head several times... and not alot makes sense. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I have tried too, after my anger subsided slightly and I tried to think of different versions, but just the fact that the dog was shot just two feet from the doorstep makes it difficult.  I just have a hard time thinking that the dog would just wait unitl the officer came right to the door step to attack, I still think that if the dog was chained, and he would have alledgely attacked, his chain would have allowed him to reach more than half the house and therefore I beleive he would have been shot further away from the door step rather than at the door step.  And if as the officer claims, the dog was loose, well the dog surely wouldnt wait for the officer to go to the front door, side door, garage door and decide to attack when he came to the back door.   There is no fence dividing the back of the house and the front of the house and not to mention the house has two driveways (community driveways) one that goes past another persons house and then leads you past the front of the house and which lands you at the back of the house, or if you went up the other driveway it brings you directly to the back of the house (garage), so which ever driveway Officer Long used to go to the house, he ultimately ended up at the back of the house (its the only place you can park, as the driveways are shared by other houses).  So have I have tried, I cant come up with any reasoning behind his story.  Bottom line is the dog got shot and hit at THE VERY LEAST once at his door step and at least three bullets where shot at Max at the door step (I have seen the large pool of blood and the three peices of concrete chunks that are missing out of their sidewalk.)  But they did find seven spent shell casings (7 too many in my opinion).


----------



## Bay_Kat

dawn said:
			
		

> protectmd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent until proven guilty. An interesting concept. Ok, so lets say that Officer Long did in fact have a good reason for shooting that dog. Perhaps the dog was about to get off the leash, or sneaking past its collar and Officer long couldn't get back to his car in time, and felt that mace wouldn't work on the dog.... so he drew his gun. fearing that the dog would rip through the chain collar, officer long fired 7 rounds into the dog. I dunno. I've played the incident out in my head several times... and not alot makes sense. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I have tried too, after my anger subsided slightly and I tried to think of different versions, but just the fact that the dog was shot just two feet from the doorstep makes it difficult.  I just have a hard time thinking that the dog would just wait unitl the officer came right to the door step to attack, I still think that if the dog was chained, and he would have alledgely attacked, his chain would have allowed him to reach more than half the house and therefore I beleive he would have been shot further away from the door step rather than at the door step.  And if as the officer claims, the dog was loose, well the dog surely wouldnt wait for the officer to go to the front door, side door, garage door and decide to attack when he came to the back door.   There is no fence dividing the back of the house and the front of the house and not to mention the house has two driveways (community driveways) one that goes past another persons house and then leads you past the front of the house and which lands you at the back of the house, or if you went up the other driveway it brings you directly to the back of the house (garage), so which ever driveway Officer Long used to go to the house, he ultimately ended up at the back of the house (its the only place you can park, as the driveways are shared by other houses).  So have I have tried, I cant come up with any reasoning behind his story.  Bottom line is the dog got shot and hit at THE VERY LEAST once at his door step and at least three bullets where shot at Max at the door step (I have seen the large pool of blood and the three peices of concrete chunks that are missing out of their sidewalk.)  But they did find seven spent shell casings (7 too many in my opinion).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line, you hear a dog barking in the back yard, don't go back there.  :shrug:
Click to expand...


----------



## 88stringslouie

If this guy is a police officer who qualified to carry a gun, he sure as hell has to be able to shoot at point blank range.
The thing that really ticks me off is the lack of responsible behavior, shooting a high powered weapon around a neighborhood seven FRICKIN times!
What if he hit someone besides the poor innocent dog?  This story wreaks of stench!
Is he a hot head with problems going on in his personal life?  I sure hope like heck that there is hell to pay for this heinous act.  

The sheriff's dept. should AT LEAST put this guy on leave without pay until a full investigation is done.  I think that there should be some expert witnesses that work with dogs, along with animal pathologists.  Someone have the balls to tell me that a 125 pound german shepherd would need 7 .357 slugs to stop him.

There ain't notta 300 pound crack addict lunatic that could keep coming with 3 shots.

This is bull$hit.  Get this guy off the street.


----------



## 88stringslouie

This cop shot a pit bull once to stop an attack.
http://www.tboblogs.com/index.php/newswire/story/st-pete-police-officer-hit-by-ricochet/

So a german shepherd needs 7?


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> If this guy is a police officer who qualified to carry a gun, he sure as hell has to be able to shoot at point blank range.
> The thing that really ticks me off is the lack of responsible behavior, shooting a high powered weapon around a neighborhood seven FRICKIN times!
> What if he hit someone besides the poor innocent dog?  This story wreaks of stench!
> Is he a hot head with problems going on in his personal life?  I sure hope like heck that there is hell to pay for this heinous act.
> 
> The sheriff's dept. should AT LEAST put this guy on leave without pay until a full investigation is done.  I think that there should be some expert witnesses that work with dogs, along with animal pathologists.  Someone have the balls to tell me that a 125 pound german shepherd would need 7 .357 slugs to stop him.
> 
> There ain't notta 300 pound crack addict lunatic that could keep coming with 3 shots.
> 
> This is bull$hit.  Get this guy off the street.


 Are you stupid?


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Yea, I'll direct you*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> Could you direct me to where I can learn about the other dogs he shot?  Where did this information come from?



As part of the "7 on Your Side" story on WJLA TV, the reporter made an inquiry of the department and Montminey acknowledged that they guy has shot two other dogs.

And no, I'm not stupid.  I'm a dog owner that is super pissed off right now, and know that his story is full of holes and does not add up.  Any idiot would know that a dog wouldn't sit in the back yard, hearing someone outside knocking on doors.  If the dog was loose, he would have attacked the guy after the first knock on the front door.  Any other explaination would just be plain old stupidity.

We need national pressure from the ASPCA and some powerful attorneys that have vested interests in animal rights to do an independent investigation and get legal proceedings underway.  
They need to take this to trial and subpoena the medical records of the treatment that this guy got from the "ATTACK".  Then, put all the people that treated him underoath and have them testify.  

 
I hope that Mr. Mattia and his family does not roll over on this one.  I know that if a cop shot my dog, I'd sell my house to take him and the damned entire department to court.  This is dead serious and could set legal precident with regard to an officer discharging his weapon around residences, and, shooting a dog that is tied up.  

This guy should not have been roaming around this gentleman's house.  Knock on the front door, serve the warrant and get out.  Unless this guy has some sort of court order, he has no business nosing around his property.  He's trespassing.  At least, I would definitely consider it trespassing on my property.

I don't know if you are a cop, but don't ever come on my property nosing around.  If you are serving a warrant, knock on my door.  If I don't answer, go away, or I'll sue you for invasion of privacy and tresspassing.

And if my ten pit bulls attack you, you had better be a better shot than this other guy.  At least one of my dogs will get you!

I for one take this crap seriously.  My dog is a family member.  You shoot my family member for no good reason, I'll see you in court (and I'd take you to a criminal court, you bet your life on it).


----------



## 88stringslouie

*It doesn't matter!*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> Did the officer actually shoot the dog seven times?  Or was there seven shots fired.  I am asking because I don't know.  I am not making a statement.



This guy discharged his handgun 7 times in a residential area.  
Come on now, that is utterly ridiculous.  He could have killed several people.

He's no more allowed to shoot his handgun 7 times near a residence (unless he's trying to stop some raging lunatic killer).  There is no one, and I mean NO ONE
that can get in front of the local citizens and with a straight face justify this guy discharging his handgun 7 times.


----------



## tom88

He's no more allowed to shoot his handgun 7 times near a residence (unless he's trying to stop some raging lunatic killer). 

Or...........trying to stop a lunitik raging dog trying to bite him you dimwit!


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> As part of the "7 on Your Side" story on WJLA TV, the reporter made an inquiry of the department and Montminey acknowledged that they guy has shot two other dogs.
> 
> And no, I'm not stupid.  I'm a dog owner that is super pissed off right now, and know that his story is full of holes and does not add up.  Any idiot would know that a dog wouldn't sit in the back yard, hearing someone outside knocking on doors.  If the dog was loose, he would have attacked the guy after the first knock on the front door.  Any other explaination would just be plain old stupidity.
> 
> We need national pressure from the ASPCA and some powerful attorneys that have vested interests in animal rights to do an independent investigation and get legal proceedings underway.
> They need to take this to trial and subpoena the medical records of the treatment that this guy got from the "ATTACK".  Then, put all the people that treated him underoath and have them testify.
> 
> 
> I hope that Mr. Mattia and his family does not roll over on this one.  I know that if a cop shot my dog, I'd sell my house to take him and the damned entire department to court.  This is dead serious and could set legal precident with regard to an officer discharging his weapon around residences, and, shooting a dog that is tied up.
> 
> This guy should not have been roaming around this gentleman's house.  Knock on the front door, serve the warrant and get out.  Unless this guy has some sort of court order, he has no business nosing around his property.  He's trespassing.  At least, I would definitely consider it trespassing on my property.
> 
> I don't know if you are a cop, but don't ever come on my property nosing around.  If you are serving a warrant, knock on my door.  If I don't answer, go away, or I'll sue you for invasion of privacy and tresspassing.
> 
> And if my ten pit bulls attack you, you had better be a better shot than this other guy.  At least one of my dogs will get you!
> 
> I for one take this crap seriously.  My dog is a family member.  You shoot my family member for no good reason, I'll see you in court (and I'd take you to a criminal court, you bet your life on it).


 I'm sorry I asked if you were stupid.  I should have read your posts and figured it out myself.


----------



## river rat

*Please ...*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry I asked if you were stupid.  I should have read your posts and figured it out myself.




Take your name calling into the fight club, Tom.

This is a public forum, open for discussion.
Once again, citizens are entitled to freedom of speech.
This includes the discussion of the concerns that have been raised over the shooting of the dog.
I would love to wait until all facts are out before I sway in my opinion, however, I don't think we (the public) are going to be given that courtesy.

Where is the CCSD's statement :shrug:

For now, I have to believe that Officer Long has too poor of judgement to be carrying a weapon.  (As posted previously, NO COMMENT is worse than an apology)

When the facts are out, if I am wrong, I will gladly apology on this thread to all I have doubted.  (and it won't take me 3 effing weeks or more to get around to it)


----------



## Mikeinsmd

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This guy should not have been roaming around this gentleman's house.  Knock on the front door, serve the warrant and get out.  Unless this guy has some sort of court order, he has no business nosing around his property.  He's trespassing.  At least, I would definitely consider it trespassing on my property.


He had every right to be there looking for the individual the court sent him there to serve.  People hide.  

What you define as trespassing is totally irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Having said that, this officer has serious issues and needs to be sat behind a desk until the investigation is complete.


----------



## Kyle

As a trained observer he would have assessed the situation with the dog and its proximity.


Evidence idicates he chose to engage the animal deliberately forcing a provocation and deadly force encounter.

Hes a trigger-happy moron with a badge.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

dawn said:
			
		

> And, yes maybe it could have been avoided if junior paid his child support, but I for one don't want to have to pay for anything that my son has done once he has grown and moved out of my house, so is it fair that you make that statement, no.


  Junior (_deadbeat dad_) listed that address as where all of his official paperwork was to be sent, and it was.  The folks should have notified someone (_law enforcement, post office_) that he wasn't there any longer.

Again, this officer has issues and if proven to be wrong should be dismissed immediately and ordered to pay restitution.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Kyle said:
			
		

> As a trained observer he would have assessed the situation with the dog and its proximity.
> 
> Evidence idicates he chose to engage the animal deliberately forcing a provocation and deadly force encounter.
> 
> Hes a trigger-happy moron with a badge.


I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## General Lee

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This guy discharged his handgun 7 times in a residential area.
> Come on now, that is utterly ridiculous.  He could have killed several people.



You along with several other people have said the same comment. It doesn't matter where he was, a neighborhood, a city, in the woods, etc. HE IS ALLOWED to discharge his weapon wherever he needs to if the opportunity presents itself. 

    I can hear it now, "I'm sorry for your loss, your family member could have been saved, but the police aren't allowed to shoot their firearms in a neighborhood. 

     And don't respond saying it was seven times and one of the bullets could have ricocheted killing someone. It could happen anywhere  police need to fire their weapons. It is his responsibility to make sure of his surroundings before shooting. You people were not there, so therefore how do you know that he didn't make sure of his surroundings. 

     Everyone needs to stop dissecting the situation, you simply aren't qualified to do so. Your mad that he shot a dog..... we get that, theres nothing you do to change it. Everyone is dissecting the issue to find right or wrong just because there not happy the dog was shot. Let the department figure it all out and if he ws in the wrong, I'm sure it will be handled accordingly.


----------



## cattitude

General Lee said:
			
		

> Let the department figure it all out and if he ws in the wrong, I'm sure it will be handled accordingly.


----------



## 88stringslouie

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/180949/Police_Officer_Shoots_Dog_But_Bullets_Hit_Fellow_Cops


----------



## General Lee

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/180949/Police_Officer_Shoots_Dog_But_Bullets_Hit_Fellow_Cops



I see your point, evidently that officer (Michigan) wasn't aware of where is fellow officers were. That doesn't mean the Charles Officer didn't verify is surroundings.  I said it is his responsibility to verify his surroundings before shooting. He may have done so, don't say he could have killed people. We were not there.


----------



## Dork

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This officer is saying that the dog attacked him.
> I know that if my dog was not tied and someone pulled up in a car, that
> dog would be barking like hell and around to the front of the house before the guy got out of the car.  What the heck was this cop doing trapesing around this gentleman's property serving a warrant.  Knock on the front door and if there ain't nobody there, LEAVE!
> 
> A six year old could tell this was a crock from the get go.  And this guy (from the news report on TV) was involved with two other shootings of dogs.  This guy needs to be investigated and the sheriff needs to ask why these people are roaming around the outside of a house, when clearly there is no one home.
> 
> If the dog was tied, a good vet would be able to tell if there was stress caused by the dog tugging on the lead.  If the owner provided documentation that the dog had rabies shots (and if I was the owner), I would have sicked another 10 rottweilers on the guy, telling me he has to take my dog for rabies and they need the head.  What a line of Bull$$$$.
> 
> I hope the owner digs up Johnny Cochran and SUES THE LIVING S$$t out of the ENTIRE DEPARTMENT!



It does seem to be excessive at this point but that is only an opinion based on what I am reading here.  I do not have a problem with the officer roaming around the outside of the house.  He was there for a legitimate reason and believe it or not, wanted people don't always answer the front door.  Woudn't you want the police to do a little extra to lock up a wanted person living next to you?  He definitely was not trespassing.


----------



## FrankBama1234

We've beaten this dead horse as about as far as it's going to go. The facts are this, Junior is wanted for child support (failing to pay). The dog is dead, Long killed it. He fired 7 shots. How many times was the dog actually hit? Can anyone answer that? Having been bitten by a dog or two in my day, I can tell you from experience when a dog is biting you, nothing is standing still. Nothing. Not the dog, or the person trying to get away. Long may have fired 7 times, but how many times did the dog get hit? Also, mace and pepper spray don't always work. Neither do tasers. I have said it before and I'll say it again, tell Junior to pay his damn child support and this whole thing would have been avoided and we can argue about the county spending millions of dollars for a baseball stadium while our children attend school in trailers.....just my opinion.


----------



## missperky

Dork said:
			
		

> It does seem to be excessive at this point but that is only an opinion based on what I am reading here.  I do not have a problem with the officer roaming around the outside of the house.  He was there for a legitimate reason and believe it or not, wanted people don't always answer the front door.  Woudn't you want the police to do a little extra to lock up a wanted person living next to you?  He definitely was not trespassing.



Sure, if that person next door was wanted for rape, murder, child molestion, stuff like, we are talking about non-payment of CS...IMO


----------



## missperky

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> We've beaten this dead horse as about as far as it's going to go. The facts are this, Junior is wanted for child support (failing to pay). The dog is dead, Long killed it. He fired 7 shots. How many times was the dog actually hit? Can anyone answer that? Having been bitten by a dog or two in my day, I can tell you from experience when a dog is biting you, nothing is standing still. Nothing. Not the dog, or the person trying to get away. Long may have fired 7 times, but how many times did the dog get hit? Also, mace and pepper spray don't always work. Neither do tasers. I have said it before and I'll say it again, tell Junior to pay his damn child support and this whole thing would have been avoided and we can argue about the county spending millions of dollars for a baseball stadium while our children attend school in trailers.....just my opinion.



Why are our children in trailers?

And all of this "what if" crap could be ended of the cop or the CC police department made a statement.


----------



## FrankBama1234

missperky said:
			
		

> Sure, if that person next door was wanted for rape, murder, child molestion, stuff like, we are talking about non-payment of CS...IMO



So you want fathers not to pay their child support? Attention All!!! You no longer have to pay child support. The Sheriff's Office will only look for you if you have committed Rape, Murder, Child Molestation and "stuff like that". I'm sure all the drug dealers and thieves will be happy to hear that as well as the absconders of Child Support.


----------



## missperky

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> So you want fathers not to pay their child support? Attention All!!! You no longer have to pay child support. The Sheriff's Office will only look for you if you have committed Rape, Murder, Child Molestation and "stuff like that". I'm sure all the drug dealers and thieves will be happy to hear that as well as the absconders of Child Support.



Are you not aware of how many dead beat parents there are in just St. Mary's alone? My oldest sons dad is one. I would be more worried about the people who are wanted for more serious stuff.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*You are sadly mistaken*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> We've beaten this dead horse as about as far as it's going to go. The facts are this, Junior is wanted for child support (failing to pay). The dog is dead, Long killed it. He fired 7 shots. How many times was the dog actually hit? Can anyone answer that? Having been bitten by a dog or two in my day, I can tell you from experience when a dog is biting you, nothing is standing still. Nothing. Not the dog, or the person trying to get away. Long may have fired 7 times, but how many times did the dog get hit? Also, mace and pepper spray don't always work. Neither do tasers. I have said it before and I'll say it again, tell Junior to pay his damn child support and this whole thing would have been avoided and we can argue about the county spending millions of dollars for a baseball stadium while our children attend school in trailers.....just my opinion.



This horse is alive and well.  I say the horse is dead after a trial of the police and the department.
I've sure that the vet that examined Max could give us an educated guess as to how many times the dog was hit.  I think that you are uneducated regarding this policeman.  Look on the internet.  Apparently this guy has a lot going on right now besides his police activity.
Since it is posted by reputable sources (the state of maryland), this is public knowledge.  Whether or not this affects his ability to make rational decisions, that's another matter.  However, discharging his weapon 7 times at a dog on a lease ( and by damned, there is no judge on this green earth that could be convinced the dog was loose as the officer pulled up) is not rational, is dangerous, and is just plain irresponsible.

Let's give it a week and see if the national ASPCA getd involved.  
Maybe we dog lovers can join forces and take this guy to court, et. al. the entire police administration.

I'd like to see the facts present themselves after an unbiased investigator supoenas the medical records of the cop, does ballistics on the shell casings to see how far from the dog that they were fired, etc.
All this data should give us a good idea as to the real story.  I for one will be glad to donate money toward getting a D.C. attorney, or an ASPCA rep to see this thing to criminal court.  I'm sure that there are others that would follow suit.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Children in Trailers*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> We've beaten this dead horse as about as far as it's going to go. The facts are this, Junior is wanted for child support (failing to pay). The dog is dead, Long killed it. He fired 7 shots. How many times was the dog actually hit? Can anyone answer that? Having been bitten by a dog or two in my day, I can tell you from experience when a dog is biting you, nothing is standing still. Nothing. Not the dog, or the person trying to get away. Long may have fired 7 times, but how many times did the dog get hit? Also, mace and pepper spray don't always work. Neither do tasers. I have said it before and I'll say it again, tell Junior to pay his damn child support and this whole thing would have been avoided and we can argue about the county spending millions of dollars for a baseball stadium while our children attend school in trailers.....just my opinion.



Well, I agree with you on the Trailers and the stupid baseball stadium.
Are we to believe this baseball stadium will bring great things to this county?
Big business, better schools, etc?  

Well, well, well.  Look at PG county.  The schools are in shambles and thanks to Paris Glendening, the finances of the county were destroyed.

That stadium has done nothing but increase the sales of hot dogs, beer, and peanuts.

Now, onto your argument about Junior.  Just because this gentleman's estranged son didn't pay his child support, that in no way gives creedance to this cop committing a crime and shooting this dog 7 times with a high powered handgun.  Don't forget, this guy has shot two other dogs.  Let's let the department explain those shootings.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> We've beaten this dead horse as about as far as it's going to go. The facts are this, Junior is wanted for child support (failing to pay). The dog is dead, Long killed it. He fired 7 shots. How many times was the dog actually hit? Can anyone answer that? Having been bitten by a dog or two in my day, I can tell you from experience when a dog is biting you, nothing is standing still. Nothing. Not the dog, or the person trying to get away. Long may have fired 7 times, but how many times did the dog get hit? Also, mace and pepper spray don't always work. Neither do tasers. I have said it before and I'll say it again, tell Junior to pay his damn child support and this whole thing would have been avoided and we can argue about the county spending millions of dollars for a baseball stadium while our children attend school in trailers.....just my opinion.



Frank, it doesnt matter how many times the dog was hit, the point is the dog was hit and died, if he fired one shot and killed him, it is just as bad as firing 7 shots and hitting him once.  The dog should not have been shot, bottom line.   Yes, junior is wanted for child support, so what.  I dont care if junior was wanted for murder, the point is a chained up dog was shot and killed by a  police officer that has a record of killing animals.    

You say you know from experience about being bitten by a dog, the only thing I can say about that is number one, did you kill the dog that bit you?  what did you do to the dog as he was bitting you?  and I also want to say that dogs are a good judge of character..(enough said) 

Your bottom line and my are so far off, Officer Long knew that there was a dog on the premises, so my bottom line is, knowing there is a dog on the property, you can do one of many things..... serve the warrant at a time that would be considered resonable for people that work, i.e., after 5:00 pm, call animal control, or just plain and simple avoid the back door!


----------



## dawn

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This horse is alive and well.  I say the horse is dead after a trial of the police and the department.
> I've sure that the vet that examined Max could give us an educated guess as to how many times the dog was hit.  I think that you are uneducated regarding this policeman.  Look on the internet.  Apparently this guy has a lot going on right now besides his police activity.
> Since it is posted by reputable sources (the state of maryland), this is public knowledge.  Whether or not this affects his ability to make rational decisions, that's another matter.  However, discharging his weapon 7 times at a dog on a lease ( and by damned, there is no judge on this green earth that could be convinced the dog was loose as the officer pulled up) is not rational, is dangerous, and is just plain irresponsible.
> 
> Let's give it a week and see if the national ASPCA getd involved.
> Maybe we dog lovers can join forces and take this guy to court, et. al. the entire police administration.
> 
> I'd like to see the facts present themselves after an unbiased investigator supoenas the medical records of the cop, does ballistics on the shell casings to see how far from the dog that they were fired, etc.
> All this data should give us a good idea as to the real story.  I for one will be glad to donate money toward getting a D.C. attorney, or an ASPCA rep to see this thing to criminal court.  I'm sure that there are others that would follow suit.




I have forward information regarding this to the ASPCA, the United States Humane Society and PETA.  And yes, I for one would also offer to help out with an attorney to help the Mattias


----------



## dawn

missperky said:
			
		

> Are you not aware of how many dead beat parents there are in just St. Mary's alone? My oldest sons dad is one. I would be more worried about the people who are wanted for more serious stuff.





I agree with you, I would prefer the cops to look for more serious offenders rather than to go peeking in peoples doors and windows looking for low lifes that dont pay child support, I do beleive there are rapist, people that murder, bank robbers that are still out there (I dont beleive they have captured them all yet, do you?) or are the cops just that lazy and undedicated that they go for the easy arrests rather than do real police work.

I will say also, that I did vote for the new sherriff, but I am starting to second guess my vote at this point, I surely would have thought by now we would have had a comment from the sherriffs office, but then again I guess the cops are trying to really find a way to make it look like the officer was not at fault.  Good luck sherriffs office, I dont think it can be done, we are not pursuaded very easily.

Bottom line, a 3 time dog killer works on the force, at least 7 bullets were discharged from the cops weapon, at the ultimate very least one bullet hit max and killed him, and a dog that was chained up on his own property was shot and killed just two feet from the doorstep to the home.

I beleive i have said this in a prior post, I have a friend that repos cars for  a living and at least half of the houses he goes to is a bad address, he has some kind of program on his computer that allow him to search for current addresses where in 9 out of 10 times, he finds the correct address for people, so why in the world would the police, knowing that probably 10 out of 10 times people are NOT going to update their information for the police to come and find them, why wouldnt the cops have the same kind of system to look for current adresses rather than rely on the prior address given?

Frank, do you know this dog killer with the name of Christopher Long?


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> I agree with you, I would prefer the cops to look for more serious offenders rather than to go peeking in peoples doors and windows looking for low lifes that dont pay child support, I do beleive there are rapist, people that murder, bank robbers that are still out there (I dont beleive they have captured them all yet, do you?) or are the cops just that lazy and undedicated that they go for the easy arrests rather than do real police work.
> 
> I will say also, that I did vote for the new sherriff, but I am starting to second guess my vote at this point, I surely would have thought by now we would have had a comment from the sherriffs office, but then again I guess the cops are trying to really find a way to make it look like the officer was not at fault.  Good luck sherriffs office, I dont think it can be done, we are not pursuaded very easily.
> 
> Bottom line, a 3 time dog killer works on the force, at least 7 bullets were discharged from the cops weapon, at the ultimate very least one bullet hit max and killed him, and a dog that was chained up on his own property was shot and killed just two feet from the doorstep to the home.
> 
> I beleive i have said this in a prior post, I have a friend that repos cars for  a living and at least half of the houses he goes to is a bad address, he has some kind of program on his computer that allow him to search for current addresses where in 9 out of 10 times, he finds the correct address for people, so why in the world would the police, knowing that probably 10 out of 10 times people are NOT going to update their information for the police to come and find them, why wouldnt the cops have the same kind of system to look for current adresses rather than rely on the prior address given?
> 
> Frank, do you know this dog killer with the name of Christopher Long?



Parents that do not pay their child support are not important? Tell that to a single parent trying to make it out there without it. You need to look at the closest gas station and see how tough things are. Apparently, you live in a utopia where everything is just perfect. Well, I have news for you it's not. There are all kinds of criminals out there praying on innocent people. If the CCSD only chased "serious" offenders, all the petty criminals would go free. What type of society would that be? Personally, I think they do a pretty good job. Go one county north and see for yourselves. And by the way, those computer programs don't always work. Most of them are web based that track orders and on-line purchases only. If someone does not use the internet, the programs are not that successful. We had a program called "Lexus Nexus" and that thing only worked about 10% of the time and when you did get an address, you found almost all had moved somewhere else. There is a reason these people don't want to be found. Ever think of that??....just my opinion.


----------



## Charles

Anybody got 7 bullets?  Shoot this thread.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*We'll shoot the thread when...*



			
				Charles said:
			
		

> Anybody got 7 bullets?  Shoot this thread.



The ASPCA, National Human Society, and a whole stream of other organizations get involved.

After seeing the helacious pictures of what that cop did to that poor dog, concrete, and all the blood,

I hope that sucker leaves the country.  In fact, why not ship the guy off to Iraq and let him fight on the front line to earn his keep.

I'm anxious to hear what Coffey has to say about the other two dogs this guy has shot.  Since the good old boy network is alive and well in this county, the only way we may get the real story is if this guy's hauled into court by some high-power attorneys.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> The ASPCA, National Human Society, and a whole stream of other organizations get involved.
> 
> After seeing the helacious pictures of what that cop did to that poor dog, concrete, and all the blood,
> 
> I hope that sucker leaves the country.  In fact, why not ship the guy off to Iraq and let him fight on the front line to earn his keep.
> 
> I'm anxious to hear what Coffey has to say about the other two dogs this guy has shot.  Since the good old boy network is alive and well in this county, the only way we may get the real story is if this guy's hauled into court by some high-power attorneys.



The Coffey administration was not in power when Long shot those other dogs. If their was a failure, it is on the back of former sheriff Davis.....FYI


----------



## 88stringslouie

*I have no qualms with Sheriff Coffey*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> The Coffey administration was not in power when Long shot those other dogs. If their was a failure, it is on the back of former sheriff Davis.....FYI



This cop is grown up.  The sheriff can't control what this guy does, except for firing him.  
It's not too late to come forward with all the information regarding the 3 shootings, then take care of business.

The last shooting did occur on Mr. Coffey's watch, so since he's the boss, he may have to feel some heat for this guy's actions.  
That's how private industry works, as well as the county's paid workers.


----------



## 88stringslouie

I would even bet that there are some K-9 officers ready to smack this guy for what he did.
Any takers?


----------



## BuddyLee

sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> My 10 month old daughter bit my ankle. What should I do?


Shoot it.


----------



## virgovictoria

BuddyLee said:
			
		

> Shoot it.


Ask Kom about his 7shooter.


----------



## 2ballscrewball

Doesn’t this make it sound reasonable?

Officer goes to serve a warrant.  Maybe the bad guy lives there, maybe he doesn’t.  The bad guy does have a connection to the house and there is a possibility that the bad guy is visiting or someone at the house has information on his location.

Officer knocks on all doors because he knows some people will answer on the 3rd of 4th knock.  The officer sees a large dog at the back of the house.  The officer has interacted with the dog before and believed the dog to be friendly.  The officer makes the decision to go in the dog’s area based on this belief.

The officer goes to the rear door and gets bitten by the dog.  The officer shoots the dog to stop the attack.

It is possible that a dog can kill a man and it happens several times a year in the U.S.  It is not unreasonable that an officer shoots an attacking dog.  This is something that happens in law enforcement often.


----------



## cattitude

2ballscrewball said:
			
		

> Doesn’t this make it sound reasonable?
> 
> Officer goes to serve a warrant.  Maybe the bad guy lives there, maybe he doesn’t.  The bad guy does have a connection to the house and there is a possibility that the bad guy is visiting or someone at the house has information on his location.
> 
> Officer knocks on all doors because he knows some people will answer on the 3rd of 4th knock.  The officer sees a large dog at the back of the house.  The officer has interacted with the dog before and believed the dog to be friendly.  The officer makes the decision to go in the dog’s area based on this belief.
> 
> The officer goes to the rear door and gets bitten by the dog.  The officer shoots the dog to stop the attack.
> 
> It is possible that a dog can kill a man and it happens several times a year in the U.S.  It is not unreasonable that an officer shoots an attacking dog.  This is something that happens in law enforcement often.



All the officer has to do is come forward.  He has chosen not to do so up to this point.  Why is that?

Another question..shoots the dog...why so many times?  

It really is pointless to keep discussing this here.  Until the officer decides to give us his side, we can only assume what happened.  Until that time, I'm siding with the Mattias.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Yes, but how often?*



			
				2ballscrewball said:
			
		

> Doesn’t this make it sound reasonable?
> 
> Officer goes to serve a warrant.  Maybe the bad guy lives there, maybe he doesn’t.  The bad guy does have a connection to the house and there is a possibility that the bad guy is visiting or someone at the house has information on his location.
> 
> Officer knocks on all doors because he knows some people will answer on the 3rd of 4th knock.  The officer sees a large dog at the back of the house.  The officer has interacted with the dog before and believed the dog to be friendly.  The officer makes the decision to go in the dog’s area based on this belief.
> 
> The officer goes to the rear door and gets bitten by the dog.  The officer shoots the dog to stop the attack.
> 
> It is possible that a dog can kill a man and it happens several times a year in the U.S.  It is not unreasonable that an officer shoots an attacking dog.  This is something that happens in law enforcement often.


  

It was cited by the department on "Seven on Your Side" that this officer has also shot two other dogs.

I'm telling you, we need to have the vet report, the report from the EMT, and any ballistics at the scene.

I would hope that a very good attorney will request this in court.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> It was cited by the department on "Seven on Your Side" that this officer has also shot two other dogs.
> 
> I'm telling you, we need to have the vet report, the report from the EMT, and any ballistics at the scene.
> 
> I would hope that a very good attorney will request this in court.


 What was the reason he shot the other dogs?  Could have been humanitarian?


----------



## cattitude

tom88 said:
			
		

> What was the reason he shot the other dogs?  Could have been humanitarian?



No clue...the officer ain't talking.


----------



## itsbob

cattitude said:
			
		

> No clue...the officer ain't talking.


He's probably not allowed to voice his part of the story, or try to defend himself in the press.  

In fact, I'd bet he's been ordered to keep quiet.


----------



## cattitude

itsbob said:
			
		

> He's probably not allowed to voice his part of the story, or try to defend himself in the press.
> 
> In fact, I'd bet he's been ordered to keep quiet.




Where are all those "unnamed source close to the case" people?


----------



## Mikeinsmd

*They're*



			
				cattitude said:
			
		

> Where are all those "unnamed source close to the case" people?


  Kwillia  AndyMarquis  ketchup  crocs  Pixie  pitbull


----------



## MMDad

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Kwillia  AndyMarquis


----------



## Coventry17

Charles County officer ... 05-29-2007 02:24 PM You may stop posting any time 

You may orally clean my taint any time.


----------



## dawn

Coventry17 said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 05-29-2007 02:24 PM You may stop posting any time
> 
> You may orally clean my taint any time.




At least you got a message with your karma, all I got was bad karma at 2:04 yesterday!  .


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 05-30-2007 07:07 PM  you complain about it..you get some more..now shut up and go away 


People are so nice.  Thank you so much for taking the time to contact me!  
and because you kind people keep contacting me, i cant go away, i need to always let you know that your red karma is well received!  Now why dont you just either stop reading posts that you have no desire to read or better yet drop d**d!


You have to love your haters, they are your biggest fans!  


 thank you


----------



## FrankBama1234

Let it go already....can we all just get along? There are plenty of dogs that need adopting at the animal shelter. If all you so called dog lovers are so concerned go adopt a dog so we can get on with our lives....just my opinion.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Let it go already....can we all just get along? There are plenty of dogs that need adopting at the animal shelter. If all you so called dog lovers are so concerned go adopt a dog so we can get on with our lives....just my opinion.




Well thank you frank for offering your opinion.  For your information, I have 4 dogs and 5 cats.  All my cats are rescue cats and 3 of my dogs are rescue dogs (not an opinion -- A FACT).   So your comment (opinion) "all you so called dog lovers are so concerned" well yes Frank we are concerned because if it can happen to three other dogs (that we are aware of) if surely can happen to one of ours.  


And furthermore, its not so easy to replace any life that is lost.  Each day it may get easier, but it can never be replaced.   And your comment to Let it go already -- That is just what Charles County Sherriffs office wants us to do -- Sorry charlie!  Its been two weeks and two days and no comment -- I for one wont let it rest until I know the Mattias are satisfied!


----------



## jetmonkey

dawn said:
			
		

> I for one wont let it rest until I know the Mattias are satisfied!


If that's the case, I hope you are doing more than bumping this thread.


----------



## dawn

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> If that's the case, I hope you are doing more than bumping this thread.




Why yes I am doing more than bumping the thread!  Among the many things I have done, I have sent emails to the ASPCA, The Humane Society of the United States and to PETA which has generated communication and awareness of what officer Long has done and I have also given the Mattias the name of an attorney that is willing to take the case as well as written letters to editors of various newspapers.  Oh yeah, and I have pissed a few people off along the way, so yes, I will say I have done my share.

So thank you Mr. JetMonkey for your concern, and since you are so concerned to know what I have done besides bump the thread, your contributions to help the Mattia's or even dog killer Long would be??????


----------



## jetmonkey

dawn said:
			
		

> So thank you Mr. JetMonkey for your concern, and since you are so concerned to know what I have done besides bump the thread, your contributions to help the Mattia's or even dog killer Long would be??????


I'm not interested in helping either of these parties. Just wondering where I can buy my ribbon.


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 06:02 PM someone otta shot you and put you out of our misery...Go AWAY!!!!! 



Thank you for your red Karma.    So nice that we have people like this around.  Are you related to Officer Long?


I will pray for you.


----------



## Ravu

dawn said:
			
		

> Why yes I am doing more than bumping the thread!  Among the many things I have done, I have sent emails to the ASPCA, The Humane Society of the United States and to PETA which has generated communication and awareness of what officer Long has done and I have also given the Mattias the name of an attorney that is willing to take the case as well as written letters to editors of various newspapers.  Oh yeah, and I have pissed a few people off along the way, so yes, I will say I have done my share.
> 
> So thank you Mr. JetMonkey for your concern, and since you are so concerned to know what I have done besides bump the thread, your contributions to help the Mattia's or even dog killer Long would be??????




Why you doing this?
What is the point of pissing people off?
You have a personal investment in this case?

Forum has no power, and the entire incident is being investigated and the outcome will happen with our without you bumping the thread and braging about what you doa dn who you send emails to.

How about bumping the dead drivers from yesterday and contribute to their families..Cop caused the accident and caused their deaths. Not sure if a dog was involved or not.

How about writing to all drivers towing trailers and tell them to use their safety chains so they dont kill people and shut down the Bay Bridge for hours..

How about sending money to the families who little kids drowned cause the sitter FELL ASLEEP?

How about going to Cove Point Park and personally assign yourself to keep an eye on a kid so that it does not drown?

How about going to the shelter and volunteering to help find homes for all the animals that will die today and tomorrow for the lack of a loving home?

Better to go out and do good deeds then to bump a thread about a dead dog.

Have a productive day.


----------



## Ravu

If you are going to leave red..be a man or a woman and leave your name!!!
And thanks for all the red.


----------



## Hello6

Won't someone think of the children?
/that's right, I went there
//had to be said.
///wait...what??


----------



## Pete

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not interested in helping either of these parties. Just wondering where I can buy my ribbon.


$4.99 ea. or 5 for $24.95


----------



## Bay_Kat

Pete said:
			
		

> $4.99 ea. or 5 for $24.95



Pete, you are too much.


----------



## Ravu

Thank you MPD person...

Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:29 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:28 PM  
 Guess Who 05-31-2007 08:10 PM Do you even understand the post?   

Yes, I do understand the post and the pain in loosing a pet to a stupid act..like neighbor running over dog and driving away...oK???


----------



## dawn

Ravu said:
			
		

> Why you doing this?
> What is the point of pissing people off?
> You have a personal investment in this case?
> 
> Forum has no power, and the entire incident is being investigated and the outcome will happen with our without you bumping the thread and braging about what you doa dn who you send emails to.
> 
> How about bumping the dead drivers from yesterday and contribute to their families..Cop caused the accident and caused their deaths. Not sure if a dog was involved or not.
> 
> How about writing to all drivers towing trailers and tell them to use their safety chains so they dont kill people and shut down the Bay Bridge for hours..
> 
> How about sending money to the families who little kids drowned cause the sitter FELL ASLEEP?
> 
> How about going to Cove Point Park and personally assign yourself to keep an eye on a kid so that it does not drown?
> 
> How about going to the shelter and volunteering to help find homes for all the animals that will die today and tomorrow for the lack of a loving home?
> 
> Better to go out and do good deeds then to bump a thread about a dead dog.
> 
> Have a productive day.




First off -- Why and I doing what????   Answering a question?
What’s the point of pissing people off -- well I do believe many people post thoughts, comments and opinions on these forums JUST TO PISS people off.  

You are correct the forum has no power, so you feel like your post will do just as much as mine?

I feel like maybe you should read the posts again.  I was not bragging nor advertising what I have done for anyone, Mr/Ms. JetMonkey asked if I was doing anything other than bumping the thread, so I wanted to advise him/her of what I have been doing other than bumping (which is not my first priority, nor could I care less about bumping anything), but when a comment is made, and I feel like I want to put myself out there, then you guessed it -- I do. 

But I WILL bump a thread when I get a red and someone leaves a rude comment.  If anyone feels the need to Red and leave the nasty comments that I have been getting, then at least, at the very least  be man/woman to sign the karma.  If you don’t sign, then yes I will bump.  

Second off- you give many suggestions on what I should be doing, you are following your own suggestions, right?  I do more than a persons share to help people and animals, more so animals and children because they are the most defenseless and voiceless.  I would love to post what I do to help out, but you may call it bragging!   

I am sorry you have issues with my posts, but Max deserves a voice and until the sheriffs office talks and and can explain why a dog needs to be either shot or shot at 7 times, Max's voice needs to be heard. 

In a nutshell, I was not bragging, a question was asked and I answered. 

So thank you for caring enough about what I wrote to post my quote in your post, but as far as I am concerned, this cop is wrong, he has killed a dog as a matter of fact three dogs, and nobody and argue that.


----------



## river rat

Ravu said:
			
		

> Thank you MPD person...
> 
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:29 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:28 PM
> Guess Who 05-31-2007 08:10 PM Do you even understand the post?
> 
> Yes, I do understand the post and the pain in loosing a pet to a stupid act..like neighbor running over dog and driving away...oK???




No, I don't think you do.

The whole point of the thread is the fact that we as citizens are concerned that Officer Long has made a terrible decision in using his weapon and applying deadly force.

The problem here is his display of aggression.
Then secondly, the CCSO's display of arrogance.

Dawn is attempting to rile Chas Co taxpayers.
She and I don not accept the behavior displayed.  We as citizens do still have the right to freedom speech, don't we?

So if you veiw her opinion as ranting, or think that it is ALL ABOUT A DOG,
if you think it is PETA lunatics raving, or believe that no one cares about those people who have died in car crashes , then you need to step away from the blunt and re-read the thread.


----------



## Ravu

river rat said:
			
		

> No, I don't think you do.
> 
> The whole point of the thread is the fact that we as citizens are concerned that Officer Long has made a terrible decision in using his weapon and applying deadly force.
> 
> The problem here is his display of aggression.
> Then secondly, the CCSO's display of arrogance.
> 
> Dawn is attempting to rile Chas Co taxpayers.
> She and I don not accept the behavior displayed.  We as citizens do still have the right to freedom speech, don't we?
> 
> So if you veiw her opinion as ranting, or think that it is ALL ABOUT A DOG,
> if you think it is PETA lunatics raving, or believe that no one cares about those people who have died in car crashes , then you need to step away from the blunt and re-read the thread.



Thank you for your comments, as biased as they are.
Cop killed a dog..get over it!!

Go to the polls and vote..do you vote BTW?

If you want to effect change , get off your arse and go make change,,,
#####ing on a cheap forum isnt going to amount to a hill of beans...and karma here means NOTHING in relation to real life.
If you have a cause..go out and get active..
You a tax payer...go vote!!!
but dont bitsch here...does nothing!!!


----------



## Speedy70

Ravu said:
			
		

> Thank you MPD person...
> 
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:29 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:28 PM
> Guess Who 05-31-2007 08:10 PM Do you even understand the post?
> 
> Yes, I do understand the post and the pain in loosing a pet to a stupid act..like neighbor running over dog and driving away...oK???




According to what you've copied and pasted here, the last red karma was not even for this thread.


----------



## Ravu

dawn said:
			
		

> First off -- Why and I doing what????   Answering a question?
> What’s the point of pissing people off -- well I do believe many people post thoughts, comments and opinions on these forums JUST TO PISS people off.
> 
> You are correct the forum has no power, so you feel like your post will do just as much as mine?
> 
> I feel like maybe you should read the posts again.  I was not bragging nor advertising what I have done for anyone, Mr/Ms. JetMonkey asked if I was doing anything other than bumping the thread, so I wanted to advise him/her of what I have been doing other than bumping (which is not my first priority, nor could I care less about bumping anything), but when a comment is made, and I feel like I want to put myself out there, then you guessed it -- I do.
> 
> But I WILL bump a thread when I get a red and someone leaves a rude comment.  If anyone feels the need to Red and leave the nasty comments that I have been getting, then at least, at the very least  be man/woman to sign the karma.  If you don’t sign, then yes I will bump.
> 
> Second off- you give many suggestions on what I should be doing, you are following your own suggestions, right?  I do more than a persons share to help people and animals, more so animals and children because they are the most defenseless and voiceless.  I would love to post what I do to help out, but you may call it bragging!
> 
> I am sorry you have issues with my posts, but Max deserves a voice and until the sheriffs office talks and and can explain why a dog needs to be either shot or shot at 7 times, Max's voice needs to be heard.
> 
> In a nutshell, I was not bragging, a question was asked and I answered.
> 
> So thank you for caring enough about what I wrote to post my quote in your post, but as far as I am concerned, this cop is wrong, he has killed a dog as a matter of fact three dogs, and nobody and argue that.



Who are you?
Judge Judy?

Were you there?
NO

Let the courts decide who is at fault..
Go and effect change...OUT THERE...
Complaining here does nothing..but unless you feel a need to boost your quilty ego..then have at it.
I care, but in reality: Dog is dead, cop is not.
Deal with it....and good luck with your crusade...
But remember..Innocent until proven quilty!!
It is the American way


----------



## Ravu

Speedy70 said:
			
		

> According to what you've copied and pasted here, the last red karma was not even for this thread.



It was from the MPD on the other dead dog thread.
Cant give any karma it to a person twice on the same topic.


----------



## Speedy70

Ravu said:
			
		

> It was from the MPD on the other dead dog thread.
> Cant give any karma it to a person twice on the same topic.




Dude, there's a 'Guess who' topic in chit chat.  That thread has nothing to do with a dog.      What are you smoking??


----------



## Kain99

dawn said:
			
		

> First off -- Why and I doing what????   Answering a question?
> What’s the point of pissing people off -- well I do believe many people post thoughts, comments and opinions on these forums JUST TO PISS people off.
> 
> You are correct the forum has no power, so you feel like your post will do just as much as mine?
> 
> I feel like maybe you should read the posts again.  I was not bragging nor advertising what I have done for anyone, Mr/Ms. JetMonkey asked if I was doing anything other than bumping the thread, so I wanted to advise him/her of what I have been doing other than bumping (which is not my first priority, nor could I care less about bumping anything), but when a comment is made, and I feel like I want to put myself out there, then you guessed it -- I do.
> 
> But I WILL bump a thread when I get a red and someone leaves a rude comment.  If anyone feels the need to Red and leave the nasty comments that I have been getting, then at least, at the very least  be man/woman to sign the karma.  If you don’t sign, then yes I will bump.
> 
> Second off- you give many suggestions on what I should be doing, you are following your own suggestions, right?  I do more than a persons share to help people and animals, more so animals and children because they are the most defenseless and voiceless.  I would love to post what I do to help out, but you may call it bragging!
> 
> I am sorry you have issues with my posts, but Max deserves a voice and until the sheriffs office talks and and can explain why a dog needs to be either shot or shot at 7 times, Max's voice needs to be heard.
> 
> In a nutshell, I was not bragging, a question was asked and I answered.
> 
> So thank you for caring enough about what I wrote to post my quote in your post, but as far as I am concerned, this cop is wrong, he has killed a dog as a matter of fact three dogs, and nobody and argue that.


Honestly, If you were here advocating for a child I'd have more respect.  People who go ape shizzle over animals scare me. 

No I have'nt given you red karma but you should re-evaluate your priorities.


----------



## Ravu

Speedy70 said:
			
		

> Dude, there's a 'Guess who' topic in chit chat.  That thread has nothing to do with a dog.      What are you smoking??



Well, EXCUSE me Mrs. or MR Perfect MAC man...You are a man..right?
Or a woman who likes to look like a man?
Not sure what you are...

So excuse me for coping one too many red karma.

And I dont smoke NOTHING!

Here is the collection from the Formites...
Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 09:50 PM tard 
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:41 PM She's got an emotional investment in this case, not those ones. ~~ Merlin 
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:31 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:29 PM  
 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:28 PM  

And only Merlin had the balls to sign the red karma he left..Thank you for having guts!!!


----------



## dawn

Ravu said:
			
		

> Who are you?
> Judge Judy?
> 
> Were you there?
> NO
> 
> Let the courts decide who is at fault..
> Go and effect change...OUT THERE...
> Complaining here does nothing..but unless you feel a need to boost your quilty ego..then have at it.
> I care, but in reality: Dog is dead, cop is not.
> Deal with it....and good luck with your crusade...
> But remember..Innocent until proven quilty!!
> It is the American way




Nope, not judge Judy, but currently law student, thank you for the compliment.

No I was not there, but only story we have to go on is the Mattias as the Sheriffs office is keeping quiet on the case, one has to wonder why????

I cant wait until the courts do decide this case and I for one surely hope that I am called for jury duty that week.
I do effect change OUT THERE
I am not complaining, but I do believe I am exercising one of my amendments just as you...
you care????  yes MAX is dead, sorry cop is not, but probably wishes he was
Thank you for wishing me luck
Innocent until proven guilty (I believe I did quote in one of my prior posts), yes I firmly believe in that philosophy, but all the facts that the public is aware is that 


Max was chained up, Max was on his own property, at least seven shots were fired, Max was killed on his walkway two feet from his door.

officer long ALLEGES he was bit....


----------



## jetmonkey

Ravu said:
			
		

> a cheap forum


Ouch!


----------



## Speedy70

Ravu said:
			
		

> Well, EXCUSE me Mrs. or MR Perfect MAC man...You are a man..right?
> Or a woman who likes to look like a man?
> Not sure what you are...
> 
> So excuse me for coping one too many red karma.




Yes,I'm a big, fat, hairy man.











Newbs.


----------



## Pandora

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> Ouch!




The karma not meaning anything in real life got me teary eyed.


----------



## Ravu

dawn said:
			
		

> Nope, not judge Judy, but currently law student, thank you for the compliment.
> 
> No I was not there, but only story we have to go on is the Mattias as the Sheriffs office is keeping quiet on the case, one has to wonder why????
> 
> I cant wait until the courts do decide this case and I for one surely hope that I am called for jury duty that week.
> I do effect change OUT THERE
> I am not complaining, but I do believe I am exercising one of my amendments just as you...
> you care????  yes MAX is dead, sorry cop is not, but probably wishes he was
> Thank you for wishing me luck
> Innocent until proven guilty (I believe I did quote in one of my prior posts), yes I firmly believe in that philosophy, but all the facts that the public is aware is that
> 
> 
> Max was chained up, Max was on his own property, at least seven shots were fired, Max was killed on his walkway two feet from his door.
> 
> officer long ALLEGES he was bit....




Gads..another law student!!!
Then back off and leave this..
Cop lawyered up..and FOP most likely told him not to say anything.

So nothing will be settled on this forum ..period.
It will go to court and be settled there..Period!

You have all ready found him guilty..some lawyer you are going to be.
He has rights too..and he is exercising them, as is the County Commissioners, etc.

Just because the dog is dead is not cause to blame the cop.

Oh, I looked at the photos..and the dog was never neutered...and a dog with testosterone in his system an be more aggressive than one who is fixed.

And I am sure the people who against dogs being chained out are adding their ire to the subject.

And there is no way a lawyer will let you sit on a jury..you are too biased and too close tot he case...way too close..almost a fanatic about it.
What kind of lawyer are you going to be if you can not keep your emotional distance and view a situation objectively?

You have issues with your ex and have a 170 pound dog, and you profess to be a law student.. I think you need to take a bit closer look at how emeshed you are in this, and back off...


----------



## dawn

Ravu said:
			
		

> Gads..another law student!!!
> Then back off and leave this..
> Cop lawyered up..and FOP most likely told him not to say anything.
> 
> So nothing will be settled on this forum ..period.
> It will go to court and be settled there..Period!
> 
> You have all ready found him guilty..some lawyer you are going to be.
> He has rights too..and he is exercising them, as is the County Commissioners, etc.
> 
> Just because the dog is dead is not cause to blame the cop.
> 
> Oh, I looked at the photos..and the dog was never neutered...and a dog with testosterone in his system an be more aggressive than one who is fixed.
> 
> And I am sure the people who against dogs being chained out are adding their ire to the subject.
> 
> And there is no way a lawyer will let you sit on a jury..you are too biased and too close tot he case...way too close..almost a fanatic about it.
> What kind of lawyer are you going to be if you can not keep your emotional distance and view a situation objectively?
> 
> You have issues with your ex and have a 170 pound dog, and you profess to be a law student.. I think you need to take a bit closer look at how emeshed you are in this, and back off...




You are a funny funny person.

First year law student mind you -- as if I need to defend myself.   My posts here have nothing to do with what my background is, I feel like there are way to many things that get swept under the carpet when the police are concerned and many things I could care less about, but when a trusted officer of the law, kills an animal, there is of course only one side of the story that the public will know.  All we have is speculation to go on and until the sherriffs office rebuts what the speculation is, well what do we do?

I am sure the cop did lawyer up and I am sure he is being told not to say anything, and that is because he is WRONG.    The police are the first ones to prove they are right in just about any circumstance BUT when they remain closed lip after over two weeks, then I am sorry, but we are left to come to our own conclusion.   There is only one witness to this shooting that is still alive and that would be officer Long, I don’t believe it would take two weeks for I.A. to question officer long and to complete their investigation, so they are hoping it just goes out of the public eye.

Yes, the cop has rights, and he abused his rights on May 15 when he shot an innocent animal.    I believe you and I have gone back and forth about neutering dogs, so I wont beat a dead horse on that issue, but as I previously stated two of my dogs are not neutered and they are not aggressive.

and as far as me being biased and a lawyer wouldn’t let me in the jury, well I think I could come up with something like, yes I believe in innocent until proven guilty... Have I been following the case?  Well considering there has been no statement from the sheriffs office, not much to follow...

and What kind of lawyer would I be if I cant keep my emotional distance and view a situation objectively?  Well I assure you, I wont be the kind of lawyer that will take just any case to make a dollar.  If I feel strongly that a person is wronged then I would be the best damn attorney he or she could get, but if I feel you wronged someone, I cant help you, I would be in private practice, so I am under no oblication to take any case I don’t want to take.  If officer Long came to me to defend him I would have to decline representing him, because I could be an attorney, but I am a human first. 

And no I don’t believe I have any issues with my ex, I stated that he has had warrants out for him in the past (for child support, nonetheless) and the police have been to my house looking for him even since he has move out of my house (over 6 years ago) (and my roommate you forgot to mention him), and yes you are correct I have a huge dog, and my dog stays outside everyday from the moment I leave until the moment my husband comes home and I will say it again if a police officer pulled up at my house (or anyone for that fact) my dog will come to greet you.  My dog looks very intimidating because of his size, but he is the nicest dog in the world, would an officer shot my dog because my dog (by the way, he was adopted from the Tri-county animal shelter) approached him?

And thank you for saying I need to take a closer look at how enmeshed I am in this, and back off.  Well no I don’t think so.   I am an animal lover, I am not trying to give legal advice in any way shape or form.   I just think what happened is down and outright cruel and I believe that Long should be held accountable for his actions.  Max was tied up when he was shot.  What I chose to do for a living has nothing to do with my emotions in this case, so you can just put that thought on the back burner and understand that I am speaking from my heart, animals are defenseless against guns.  I am really glad I don’t have your mentality of thinking, I have save countless animals, whether they were fixed or not and I would never pass up an opportunity to help dog, because he still has b***s.    I am the person that you will see pulling over to move a turtle out of the road, I am the person that if I see a dog wondering on a busy street, that pulls over to look for tags, I am the kind of person that if I see a possum or raccoon in the road that will stop to let it scurry to the other side, I am the one that calls county every time there is a dead deer on the side of the road, so I would ask you to rethink you advice and understand that it is me as a human posting, one with feelings and that is expressing her amendment right.  So sir I have to put your request back to you and ask that you back off.


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 10:44 PM You'll make a piss poor lawyer. Probably wind up giving lap dances to get through life. Have fun. 

 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 10:33 PM  

 Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 09:52 PM dumba** 



Well considering that I started working at the age of 14 (delivering the Washington Star newspaper), and started working in a law offfice at the age of 19, bought my first house when I was 23, rented that house out purchased my second home at the age of 27, sold my first home and rented out my second home and had a house built on over six acres, have a five car garage, filled with two suvs and a convertible sports car, I have a 15 year mortage loan and have less than 10 years to pay on it, I am currently a paralegal and a real estate sales person and starting school, I dont think there is any chance I will end up giving lap dances to get through life.  But thanks for humoring me.   



and I apologize to everyone that this post has nothing to with the subject at hand, but the coward that karma'd me, didn't leave his signature.


----------



## Ravu

dawn said:
			
		

> You are a funny funny person.
> 
> First year law student mind you -- as if I need to defend myself.   My posts here have nothing to do with what my background is, I feel like there are way to many things that get swept under the carpet when the police are concerned and many things I could care less about, but when a trusted officer of the law, kills an animal, there is of course only one side of the story that the public will know.  All we have is speculation to go on and until the sherriffs office rebuts what the speculation is, well what do we do?
> 
> I am sure the cop did lawyer up and I am sure he is being told not to say anything, and that is because he is WRONG.    The police are the first ones to prove they are right in just about any circumstance BUT when they remain closed lip after over two weeks, then I am sorry, but we are left to come to our own conclusion.   There is only one witness to this shooting that is still alive and that would be officer Long, I don’t believe it would take two weeks for I.A. to question officer long and to complete their investigation, so they are hoping it just goes out of the public eye.
> 
> Yes, the cop has rights, and he abused his rights on May 15 when he shot an innocent animal.    I believe you and I have gone back and forth about neutering dogs, so I wont beat a dead horse on that issue, but as I previously stated two of my dogs are not neutered and they are not aggressive.
> 
> and as far as me being biased and a lawyer wouldn’t let me in the jury, well I think I could come up with something like, yes I believe in innocent until proven guilty... Have I been following the case?  Well considering there has been no statement from the sheriffs office, not much to follow...
> 
> and What kind of lawyer would I be if I cant keep my emotional distance and view a situation objectively?  Well I assure you, I wont be the kind of lawyer that will take just any case to make a dollar.  If I feel strongly that a person is wronged then I would be the best damn attorney he or she could get, but if I feel you wronged someone, I cant help you, I would be in private practice, so I am under no oblication to take any case I don’t want to take.  If officer Long came to me to defend him I would have to decline representing him, because I could be an attorney, but I am a human first.
> 
> And no I don’t believe I have any issues with my ex, I stated that he has had warrants out for him in the past (for child support, nonetheless) and the police have been to my house looking for him even since he has move out of my house (over 6 years ago) (and my roommate you forgot to mention him), and yes you are correct I have a huge dog, and my dog stays outside everyday from the moment I leave until the moment my husband comes home and I will say it again if a police officer pulled up at my house (or anyone for that fact) my dog will come to greet you.  My dog looks very intimidating because of his size, but he is the nicest dog in the world, would an officer shot my dog because my dog (by the way, he was adopted from the Tri-county animal shelter) approached him?
> 
> And thank you for saying I need to take a closer look at how enmeshed I am in this, and back off.  Well no I don’t think so.   I am an animal lover, I am not trying to give legal advice in any way shape or form.   I just think what happened is down and outright cruel and I believe that Long should be held accountable for his actions.  Max was tied up when he was shot.  What I chose to do for a living has nothing to do with my emotions in this case, so you can just put that thought on the back burner and understand that I am speaking from my heart, animals are defenseless against guns.  I am really glad I don’t have your mentality of thinking, I have save countless animals, whether they were fixed or not and I would never pass up an opportunity to help dog, because he still has b***s.    I am the person that you will see pulling over to move a turtle out of the road, I am the person that if I see a dog wondering on a busy street, that pulls over to look for tags, I am the kind of person that if I see a possum or raccoon in the road that will stop to let it scurry to the other side, I am the one that calls county every time there is a dead deer on the side of the road, so I would ask you to rethink you advice and understand that it is me as a human posting, one with feelings and that is expressing her amendment right.  So sir I have to put your request back to you and ask that you back off.



Then why do you keep bumping this post?
Let the courst sort it out adn after that is done, go vote in or out of office the bad guys and get your buddies into office.
The cop is innicent until a jury of his peers find him guilty.
PERIOD.
Dog is dead all because some father did not pay his child support.
I wonder if that is part of your emotional emeshment...Child Support?

And if you are going to breed, there is NO reason to have a pet that is not spayed or neutered.
No reason what so ever.
No hormones, no aggression, or a lot less unless trained to be agressive.


----------



## dawn

Ravu said:
			
		

> Then why do you keep bumping this post?
> Let the courst sort it out adn after that is done, go vote in or out of office the bad guys and get your buddies into office.
> The cop is innicent until a jury of his peers find him guilty.
> PERIOD.
> Dog is dead all because some father did not pay his child support.
> I wonder if that is part of your emotional emeshment...Child Support?
> 
> And if you are going to breed, there is NO reason to have a pet that is not spayed or neutered.
> No reason what so ever.
> No hormones, no aggression, or a lot less unless trained to be agressive.




No you are incorrect on wondering of the emotional emeshment -- Child Support -- My ex-had children with another, not me.  I do have a son, and I am with his father, but I know this is another story, I would not take his father to court for child support, I chose to have a child in my life when I knew I could afford him without any help.  So you are off the target totally with that comment.  

I am bumping the thread to defend myself against your comments.  If you stop making the remarks that you make, I wouldnt have to comment (defend) myself. 

I have no intention of breeding, but I just dont have my dogs fixed.  I see no reason for it when my dogs stay on my property, they are not agressive and as I mentioned to you previously, when they go to the vet, the vet doesnt mention anything to me about it.   

I would love to continue defenidng myself against you, but it is almost midnight and I am still at work -- Time to Go! 

Have agreat night!


----------



## Ravu

Cant control your ex so you compensate by not neutering your dogs?
OK..I understand.
And you are with husband # 2? 

Home owners insurance somethimes base their rates on  number of animals and if they are neutered or not: called liability. The higher the risk, the higher the rates.
If I visit and your intact dogs comes at me and I fall and get hurt, I can sue over the fact you have an intact, (not neutered) out of control dog.
Trust me, I would win.
Check out the Postal Service and see the number of dog bites and the number of intact vs neutered.

So nice to know you goof off when you are supposed to be working. Some places that is called stealing from the boss.
You get paid for going online and posting here?
Must be nice...


----------



## 88stringslouie

*It ain't the same*



			
				Ravu said:
			
		

> Thank you MPD person...
> 
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:30 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:29 PM
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 08:28 PM
> Guess Who 05-31-2007 08:10 PM Do you even understand the post?
> 
> Yes, I do understand the post and the pain in loosing a pet to a stupid act..like neighbor running over dog and driving away...oK???



This guy has "ran over" 3 dogs.  When is our taxpayer funded CCSO going to come forward and explain this guy blowing away 3 dogs?


----------



## Coventry17

dawn said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 05-30-2007 07:07 PM  you complain about it..you get some more..now shut up and go away
> 
> 
> People are so nice.  Thank you so much for taking the time to contact me!
> and because you kind people keep contacting me, i cant go away, i need to always let you know that your red karma is well received!  Now why dont you just either stop reading posts that you have no desire to read or better yet drop d**d!
> 
> 
> You have to love your haters, they are your biggest fans!
> 
> 
> thank you




Unfortunately it's the very vocal minority.  For the most part, the people on here are very nice.  It's just the handful of sh*theads that make everyone else look bad, as usual.


----------



## 88stringslouie

Ravu said:
			
		

> Who are you?
> Judge Judy?
> 
> Were you there?
> NO
> 
> Let the courts decide who is at fault..
> Go and effect change...OUT THERE...
> Complaining here does nothing..but unless you feel a need to boost your quilty ego..then have at it.
> I care, but in reality: Dog is dead, cop is not.
> Deal with it....and good luck with your crusade...
> But remember..Innocent until proven quilty!!
> It is the American way



Blogsites are a way of people banding together and raising hell.
It's pretty damned obvious according to those helacious pictures as to what the guy did.

I agree about the American way.  But, I don't want any scheister lawyer getting this guy off.


----------



## Coventry17

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Let it go already....can we all just get along? There are plenty of dogs that need adopting at the animal shelter. If all you so called dog lovers are so concerned go adopt a dog so we can get on with our lives....just my opinion.




There are a lot of kids that need adopting, too.  By your reasoning, he could've killed a child and we'd just have to "let it go".


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Now I'm pissed*



			
				Kain99 said:
			
		

> Honestly, If you were here advocating for a child I'd have more respect.  People who go ape shizzle over animals scare me.
> 
> No I have'nt given you red karma but you should re-evaluate your priorities.



People that don't give a rat's butt about a domestic animal being murdered by someone wielding around a gun should reconsider the powerful legal lobby in this country that DO give a rat's butt about the ethical treatment of animals.


----------



## sockgirl77

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> People that don't give a rat's butt about a domestic animal being murdered by someone wielding around a gun should reconsider the powerful legal lobby in this country that DO give a rat's butt about the ethical treatment of animals.


That is a really long sentence.


----------



## 88stringslouie

Ravu said:
			
		

> Then why do you keep bumping this post?
> Let the courst sort it out adn after that is done, go vote in or out of office the bad guys and get your buddies into office.
> The cop is innicent until a jury of his peers find him guilty.
> PERIOD.
> Dog is dead all because some father did not pay his child support.
> I wonder if that is part of your emotional emeshment...Child Support?
> 
> And if you are going to breed, there is NO reason to have a pet that is not spayed or neutered.
> No reason what so ever.
> No hormones, no aggression, or a lot less unless trained to be agressive.



1)  There is no law stating you have to neuter a dog
2)  The cop shot the dog dead
3)  The father not paying child support has A
BSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a cop that shot the dog dead.  There is NO
correlation between one and the other.  

The evidence points to a cop that felt like shooting a dog on a tether that day.  

4)  I would LOVE!!!! to be on the jury for this case.  I would hate to be this cop.  From what I understand, he and the department will have their hands full with the legal fight they will have. 

5)  And yes, this case will get NATIONAL publicity.  Count on it!


----------



## cattitude

Ravu said:
			
		

> Cant control your ex so you compensate by not neutering your dogs?
> OK..I understand.
> And you are with husband # 2?
> 
> Home owners insurance somethimes base their rates on  number of animals and if they are neutered or not: called liability. The higher the risk, the higher the rates.
> If I visit and your intact dogs comes at me and I fall and get hurt, I can sue over the fact you have an intact, (not neutered) out of control dog.
> Trust me, I would win.
> Check out the Postal Service and see the number of dog bites and the number of intact vs neutered.
> 
> So nice to know you goof off when you are supposed to be working. Some places that is called stealing from the boss.
> You get paid for going online and posting here?
> Must be nice...



You, sir, are an idiot.


----------



## cattitude

Kain99 said:
			
		

> Honestly, If you were here advocating for a child I'd have more respect.  People who go ape shizzle over animals scare me.
> 
> No I have'nt given you red karma but you should re-evaluate your priorities.



Boo!

You are missing the point.


----------



## Speedy70

cattitude said:
			
		

> You, sir, are an idiot.




Post of the day!


----------



## Pete

dawn said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 10:44 PM You'll make a piss poor lawyer. Probably wind up giving lap dances to get through life. Have fun.
> 
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 10:33 PM
> 
> Charles County officer ... 05-31-2007 09:52 PM dumba**
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering that I started working at the age of 14 (delivering the Washington Star newspaper), and started working in a law offfice at the age of 19, bought my first house when I was 23, rented that house out purchased my second home at the age of 27, sold my first home and rented out my second home and had a house built on over six acres, have a five car garage, filled with two suvs and a convertible sports car, I have a 15 year mortage loan and have less than 10 years to pay on it, I am currently a paralegal and a real estate sales person and starting school, I dont think there is any chance I will end up giving lap dances to get through life.  But thanks for humoring me.
> 
> 
> 
> and I apologize to everyone that this post has nothing to with the subject at hand, but the coward that karma'd me, didn't leave his signature.


Pixie?


----------



## pixiegirl

Pete said:
			
		

> Pixie?



There is no mention of fake hooters....  Don't bring me into this mess!


----------



## General Lee

dawn said:
			
		

> Why yes I am doing more than bumping the thread!  Among the many things I have done, I have sent emails to the ASPCA, The Humane Society of the United States and to PETA which has generated communication and awareness of what officer Long has done and I have also given the Mattias the name of an attorney that is willing to take the case as well as written letters to editors of various newspapers.  Oh yeah, and I have pissed a few people off along the way, so yes, I will say I have done my share.
> 
> So thank you Mr. JetMonkey for your concern, and since you are so concerned to know what I have done besides bump the thread, your contributions to help the Mattia's or even dog killer Long would be??????




You should be proud ....


----------



## PrchJrkr

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> 4)  I would LOVE!!!! to be on the jury for this case.  I would hate to be this cop.  From what I understand, he and the department will have their hands full with the legal fight they will have...



Have you ever served jury duty? I don't think either you or dawn have. The is no way in hell, that a defense lawyer would let you sit on a jury.

Defense: Do you own pets?

PETA PITA: Yes

Defense: How many and what kind?

PETA PITA: I own dogs and lots of them.

Defense: Deny

Dawn, if you don't know any more about the judicial system than you are posting, maybe the lap dancing thing isn't a bad idea, IMHO.


----------



## Ravu

Thank you SOMD!!!
Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:07 AM	not the same in comparison
	Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:06 AM	have some more
	Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:05 AM	you are dense
	Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:05 AM	have some more, you just don't get it
	Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:00 AM	haaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
	Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 01:14 AM	Do you realize how stupid you sound?

Look at those times..must be a MPD  ..wow..how do you do it?

Do you realize how stupid this thread has become all because Dawn is so  involved with it and is sucking all of you in to give the thread more status?

It is so sad that you condem a person before all the FACTS are in.
And you are Americans? Sound more like gang of vigalanties

He shot a dog 7 times, lets hang him..

He ran over 3 dogs...Lets hang him.
ANYONE know the fact ehre?? Humm??? Anyone submit proof of this alleged crime?

The dog was chained out and no one was home..Poor dog
Dog not neutered..hormones raging..poor dog..
Spring time. females in heat someplace..dog knows..so he is chained..very poor dog..has babies to make and he cant...and he can't control his hormones either...poor dog..

Cop serving warrent..good..he is doing his job..
Because some deadbeat did not pay child support..lets hang him too...
Opps..address is wrong..fault of the ystem..lets go hang the "system".

Opps, homeowners never notified "system" of deadbeats address...
Hang the homeowners too...
Ex wife needs $$ for child support..lets hang them too because they caused all of this for getting divorced

Gonna need a big tree and a lot of rope to hang all these people..and lets all go save all the dogs and not neuter or spay them and take them to Dawns farm...sounds llike she has a lot of space and money to take them all in.

Now how stupid does this sound?

What is the point of this thread..it has been rehashed, rumors added, threats made and a lot of angry people..
Go out "THERE" and get angry..
Go make change in the system if you dont like the system....
It is your county (not mine BTW) but it is our legal system at work here.

Go out and make change..it is not gonna happen in  here.

Thanks again for the unsigned karm. Only one person signed it and I thanks you for that, and I do not give out karma as revenge.

And Catt...I am not an idiot as you profess I am.

I am a realist who is waiting for the courts to hear this case, not a vigilanty gang wanting to hang this cop because he shot a dog.

remember the cop who killed a biker yeaterday?
remember the cop who caused a massive accident adn 2 were killed?
Lets go hang them for killing 3 people ( all in 2 days).


----------



## cattitude

Ravu said:
			
		

> Thank you SOMD!!!
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:07 AM	not the same in comparison
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:06 AM	have some more
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:05 AM	you are dense
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:05 AM	have some more, you just don't get it
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 10:00 AM	haaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 01:14 AM	Do you realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Look at those times..must be a MPD  ..wow..how do you do it?
> 
> Do you realize how stupid this thread has become all because Dawn is so  involved with it and is sucking all of you in to give the thread more status?
> 
> It is so sad that you condem a person before all the FACTS are in.
> And you are Americans? Sound more like gang of vigalanties
> 
> He shot a dog 7 times, lets hang him..
> 
> He ran over 3 dogs...Lets hang him.
> ANYONE know the fact ehre?? Humm??? Anyone submit proof of this alleged crime?
> 
> The dog was chained out and no one was home..Poor dog
> Dog not neutered..hormones raging..poor dog..
> Spring time. females in heat someplace..dog knows..so he is chained..very poor dog..has babies to make and he cant...and he can't control his hormones either...poor dog..
> 
> Cop serving warrent..good..he is doing his job..
> Because some deadbeat did not pay child support..lets hang him too...
> Opps..address is wrong..fault of the ystem..lets go hang the "system".
> 
> Opps, homeowners never notified "system" of deadbeats address...
> Hang the homeowners too...
> Ex wife needs $$ for child support..lets hang them too because they caused all of this for getting divorced
> 
> Gonna need a big tree and a lot of rope to hang all these people..and lets all go save all the dogs and not neuter or spay them and take them to Dawns farm...sounds llike she has a lot of space and money to take them all in.
> 
> Now how stupid does this sound?
> 
> What is the point of this thread..it has been rehashed, rumors added, threats made and a lot of angry people..
> Go out "THERE" and get angry..
> Go make change in the system if you dont like the system....
> It is your county (not mine BTW) but it is our legal system at work here.
> 
> Go out and make change..it is not gonna happen in  here.
> 
> Thanks again for the unsigned karm. Only one person signed it and I thanks you for that, and I do not give out karma as revenge.
> 
> And Catt...I am not an idiot as you profess I am.
> 
> I am a realist who is waiting for the courts to hear this case, not a vigilanty gang wanting to hang this cop because he shot a dog.
> 
> remember the cop who killed a biker yeaterday?
> remember the cop who caused a massive accident adn 2 were killed?
> Lets go hang them for killing 3 people ( all in 2 days).



Are you neutered?


----------



## Ravu

cattitude said:
			
		

> Are you neutered?



Yes,,had TC,,5 years ago..from soccer trauma in college..
and you?

BTW: what is the point of that question?
Redirection of the subject?


----------



## cattitude

Ravu said:
			
		

> Yes,,had TC,,5 years ago..from soccer trauma in college..
> and you?
> 
> BTW: what is the point of that question?
> Redirection of the subject?



Whether or not I'm spayed isn't relevant to this discussion.  You were speaking to the effects of intact males and hormones raging.

And, if you are so intelligent, I'm sure you realize people can, and do, list any address they choose to...especially to avoid the law.


----------



## lovinmaryland

Do you realize how stupid this thread has become all because Dawn is so  involved with it and is sucking all of you in to give the thread more status?[/QUOTE]

why don't you and dawn agree to disagree? :shrug: 

you can't say that she is posting to keep this thread going when you are basically doing the same thing.


----------



## Ravu

lovinmaryland said:
			
		

> Do you realize how stupid this thread has become all because Dawn is so  involved with it and is sucking all of you in to give the thread more status?



why don't you and dawn agree to disagree? :shrug: 

you can't say that she is posting to keep this thread going when you are basically doing the same thing.[/QUOTE]


Not really...you are keeping it going by replying and not going out to take action....


----------



## MMDad

Ravu said:
			
		

> you are keeping it going by replying and not going out to take action....


 So what, exactly, do you think you are doing, if not replying?

Quick, answer me and keep it going.


----------



## Ravu

cattitude said:
			
		

> Whether or not I'm spayed isn't relevant to this discussion.  You were speaking to the effects of intact males and hormones raging.
> 
> And, if you are so intelligent, I'm sure you realize people can, and do, list any address they choose to...especially to avoid the law.




You saying humans are like  and  dog who can not can not control its hormones?

See how stupid  statement that is?

You ask me so I ask you..
You took the time to ask so it must have been important for you to know..

And have you had TC?


----------



## lovinmaryland

Ravu said:
			
		

> Yes,,had TC,,5 years ago..from soccer trauma in college..
> and you?





			
				Ravu said:
			
		

> Oh, I looked at the photos..and the dog was never neutered...and a dog with testosterone in his system an be more aggressive than one who is fixed.



you were nuetered and are still pretty aggressive :shrug:


----------



## lovinmaryland

Ravu said:
			
		

> why don't you and dawn agree to disagree? :shrug:
> 
> you can't say that she is posting to keep this thread going when you are basically doing the same thing.




Not really...you are keeping it going by replying and not going out to take action....[/QUOTE]


any suggestions on what i should do?   

on one hand you are saying to let the legal system handle it..... now your telling me to go out and take action. 

What the hell do you think Dawn is trying to do?


----------



## pingrr

Ravu said:
			
		

> You saying humans are like  and  dog who can not can not control its hormones?
> 
> See how stupid  statement that is?
> 
> You ask me so I ask you..
> You took the time to ask so it must have been important for you to know..
> 
> And have you had TC?




What the hell is TC.  Is it some kind of Taint Cleaning ritual you go through before your boyfriend comes over?


----------



## cattitude

Ravu said:
			
		

> You saying humans are like  and  dog who can not can not control its hormones?
> 
> See how stupid  statement that is?


  If I could make sense out it, I might be able to answer your question.  Of course the second question doesn't read so well either.  



			
				Ravu said:
			
		

> You ask me so I ask you..
> You took the time to ask so it must have been important for you to know..
> 
> And have you had TC?



No, I was pulling an assumption out of my azz as you were doing.  

I don't know what TC is.


----------



## Ravu

pingrr said:
			
		

> What the hell is TC.  Is it some kind of Taint Cleaning ritual you go through before your boyfriend comes over?



TC: testicular cancer .......Next  stupid question from the SMIB group?

Oh and is ths from the SMIBs too?
Charles County officer ...	06-01-2007 01:12 PM	digle bery dingle bery dingle berry ho, why dont you get of these forams and go back to your hobby circumsizing gay pengins or do you already have to many forskin hats laying around to know what to do with heres a hint go find - ching chong ping pong


----------



## Ravu

lovinmaryland said:
			
		

> Not really...you are keeping it going by replying and not going out to take action....




any suggestions on what i should do?   

on one hand you are saying to let the legal system handle it..... now your telling me to go out and take action. 

What the hell do you think Dawn is trying to do?[/QUOTE]

Dawn has all ready decided the cop is guilty and is building a case against him.

If you dont like your public officials, go vote then out of office..that is the action Im talking about.


----------



## dawn

Ravu said:
			
		

> any suggestions on what i should do?
> 
> on one hand you are saying to let the legal system handle it..... now your telling me to go out and take action.
> 
> What the hell do you think Dawn is trying to do?



Dawn has all ready decided the cop is guilty and is building a case against him.

If you dont like your public officials, go vote then out of office..that is the action Im talking about.[/QUOTE]


Mr. Ravu -- I refuse to go back and forth with you anymore after this post.   I will agree that we will not agree.   We both have our opinions and frankly I don't care to banter with someone who lacks the ability to exercise common sense.   So after this post in response to your last comment,  I hope I can be the bigger person and refrain from lowering myself to your level.
Yes I have decided the officer is guilty.   A chained dog was shot or shot at, at least 7 flippen times.  Had the officer been bitten it would have been a world class issue (at least a Charles county issue), they (sheriffs office) would have been out on public display professing there was reason for the dog to be shot.  They have been tight-lipped and I think they will try to remain as tight lipped as posisble until this issue has move from the public eye and I am sorry Mr. Ravu, I don't believe it should be swept under the carpet.  My animals are treated like my child (well almost)  and when an animal passes, it is a loss that hurts, but when an animal is murdered on your own property and through no fault of your own, well that is just not explainable.  And you, Mr. Ravu chose  to dismiss it as it was just an animal that was not fixed, enrages me to the point that I refuse to continue with you.


And I sir, did vote -- I believe I previously posted that I did vote for Mr. Coffey in this election and the past.  Christopher Long was an officer way before Rex Coffey came into office.  There is no election coming up, but I assure you, I do not forget.  

I believe I will start campaigning to whoever is the commissioner for that area, which I believe may be Sam Graves. 

Mr. Ravu, my taxes as well as yours (if you are a resident) pays for a allot in Charles County, including the police, I don't think it is unreasonable that after 15 days that some type of acknowledgment and accountability of what this officer has done to hurt the Mattias as well as decrease the credibility of the Sherriff office is too much to ask for unless of course they have something to hide.


----------



## JesseJames

Wow... A very long thread. Obviously this has pricked a nerve.

I have had some experiences with dogs that could shed some light as to what may have happened.

The owners obviously left their dog attached to the leash. This is why they insist the dog was tied up. However it would be safe to pre-sume the dog was somehow able to get loose. 

My dog, when it gets loose tries to roam the neighborhood. It is very likely the dog was "out and about" when this cop arrived at the house. Not too far, but not right there either. Though the cop had come to the house before, he may have forgotten they had a dog -- or, not hearing it bark (as it was away) figured it was inside.

He then proceeds to serve a warrant. Where he got his information about where the guy lives is irrelevant, this is an address he decided to check. The Cop checked one address he had, everyone would. When you are paid to find someone you check all available addresses. No one would have objected to that had the homeowner been home and aswered the door, saying that their son was no longer living there. The owner would have probably just have informed the cop that their son hasn't lived there in a long time. End of story -- but the homeowner wasn't there. Max was, and Max only had one piece of advice for the cop and only one way of showing it.

Police, while looking for someone are going to do just that. They are going to poke around -- we pay them to do it, regardless of what kind of warrant we pay them to find people and serve those warrants. The more dangerous the "bad guy" or more heinous the crime the harder police will look, with more weaponry -- even using a S.W.A.T. team to find the more dangerous bad guys. We have all said this was "just a child support warrant", simply served by asking if "bad guy" is there -- as opposed to kicking down the front door.

The cop doesn't stop at the front door. It is possible the person may have been outback, or in a different room or whatever. There are times when I have gone to friend's homes and, after knocking at the front door and getting no answer, went to the side door, back door, or even garage door and found them. No brainer there.

Now, while the cop is checking the other doors, Max returns. He goes to the door he sees the officer nearest. The officer is too close for Max's comfort. Based on the size and shape of some officers I have seen -- running for the car and making it aint an option. Pepper spray is one of the items this officer doesn't carry, or he would have used it. It sounds like he carries his gun for that rare occasion someone may try to kill him, otherwise cuffs are it. If it is within the department's policy, we cannot fault him. So he has his gun and Max has decided the cop doesn't belong there. Max escaped the leash, but his collar is still on. We don't know how. The leash is there on the ground right where Max left it.

The cop must make a decision. There is a taser video on the internet where a Rottweiler begins his attack on the cop. It is quick. The officer would have shot but another officer on the scene intervenes with the taser. Good thing, or the dog would have been shot by most of us who were armed with a handgun to stop the attack. Google "taser videos" and select the "Top Ten Taser videos" you will see a dog in attack mode. It is quick, split second decision time!!!

The cop decides to shoot. We may not agree but he did. For any of us -- what would we do if the first shot didn't stop the attack? Doesn't matter what caliber we shoot, if shot #1 doesn't work -- what do we do? The answer = shoot again. What if that one doesn't produce OUR desired effect? The answer = shoot again. Ultimately, once we decided to shoot to produce an effect (in this case STOP DOG ATTACK) we keep shooting. The total number of rounds shot in this case is seven. Seven did the trick or you can bet there would have been 8 and so on. You can bet that if two had done the job, two would have probably been all that was fired -- and it would still upset us because it meant Max was dead.

Max, if able continues to do what he set out to do. Max is in the right, no one can argue that either. Max will do what he believes is right, until he chases "bad guy" away or is no longer able to continue. Max is a credit to his breed. Had Max run away after the first shot, Max might still be alive as well. Max ain't no coward!!! He did his very, very best. Where law meets citizen, there are certain allowances. Max didn't understand them. We know that police are allowed on our property to find someone, Max didn't know that and was having no part of it. You could explain that to a person easily, not to Max. Max used all the tools in his bag to try to get rid of the cop. Those tools are deadly, all of us know that dogs can, and do kill. Police and animal control know all too well. 

As far as animal control responding... things went down too fast for that.

One round struck Max's collar. It went through the collar, producing the damage found on it. It is safe to assume the officer was aiming for the dog's head. Not an easy target. Max wasn't holding still and those pistol's aren't precision scoped rifles. The recoil of a .357 doesn't make it easy to stay on target and I have seen statistics that say accuracy drops as much as 50% in a stressful situation. That is the body's physical limitations, nothing can be done there. Even if you hit 100% of the time on the range, each individual is different but that person may begin to only hit 50% after that.

I don't know where the shooting started, but I bet that Max was moving towards the officer and it is likely the officer was trying to get away. That is the likely natural response. Max probably fell right where he was found, and that was next to the leash he was originally tethered to... again producing the evidence we have regarding the pool of blood near the leash. Being near the leash doesn't mean Max was on it when the attack began. Only one thing would prove that, and that would be if Max was still on the leash when the attack was over.

Tragically Max was killed. Max did his job and the cop did his. Where the two jobs overlap there resulted a conflict. There was no one there to call Max off, and no matter how much the cop wants to get away -- he can't. 

The other incidents of dog killings by this officer are not part of this one. I have heard that there was an animal control officer that a dog was attacking and a deputy killed that dog. It was a pit bull -- but... even if it was a chihuaha, by the time I heard about it, the dog would have turned into a Pit Bull anyway. Honestly I think the person who told me said it was this cop.

Consider the possibilities folks and know that it is a hassle every time a cop shoots his weapon. Every Time. I doubt that cop drove all the way to that house to kill Max.

Thoughts and prayers for both the officer and the family.


----------



## tom88

*wow*



			
				JesseJames said:
			
		

> Wow... A very long thread. Obviously this has pricked a nerve.
> 
> Consider the possibilities folks and know that it is a hassle every time a cop shoots his weapon. Every Time. I doubt that cop drove all the way to that house to kill Max.
> 
> Thoughts and prayers for both the officer and the family.



This is probably the most intellegent post I have read since I began reading posts on this forum.  Thank you for your rational insight into the event.


----------



## marybek

I can tell you first hand that dogs are very dangerous, even ones who have been passive in the past.  I don't know what happened in this instance, but I do know dogs attack.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*A very long thread and a very long tail*



			
				JesseJames said:
			
		

> Wow... A very long thread. Obviously this has pricked a nerve.
> 
> I have had some experiences with dogs that could shed some light as to what may have happened.
> 
> Ya, di, ya, di, ya.......
> 
> After looking at the pics in the newspaper online, this sounds like a very long line of BS.
> The dog was tied, Long shot down at the dog and into the concrete.  I'd be anxious to know if there was gunpowder on Max.  How about gunpowder on the tether?  I would think that a 1st year forensic student could bury this cop.
> Did ANYONE examine the tether for gunpowder?  If Mr. Jesse James' tale were even close to accurate, Coffey and Long and all their commrades would have been in the newspapers.  We aren't that dumb.
> I bet there was some forensic work done at the scene and either the family was paid off to keep quiet, or the CCSO is hiring a "big gun" attorney to get ready for the fight of their life.
> 
> As a taxpayer who pays the salary of Long and others, I would find it repugnant that a penny of my money would go to the Mattias from the department.  Personally, I would rather contribute to a fund, if needed, for the attorney of the Mattias.
> 
> And to someone that suggested that this thread is about the bickering between a couple of individuals, it isn't even close.
> This is a personal matter between decent human beings that love a domestic pet as a family member and are appalled that this cop has shot 3 dogs (2 of which we know nothing about the circumstances), got away with 2 of them, but the 3rd was covered by the National and Local Media.
> 
> Hopefully Hell will freeze over before this abhorent crime is swept under the rug. Everyday that passes without a whisper from Sheriff Coffey and the department causes festering animosity that the public feels for this cop and the leadership.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> JesseJames said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... A very long thread. Obviously this has pricked a nerve.
> 
> I have had some experiences with dogs that could shed some light as to what may have happened.
> 
> Ya, di, ya, di, ya.......
> 
> After looking at the pics in the newspaper online, this sounds like a very long line of BS.
> The dog was tied, Long shot down at the dog and into the concrete.  I'd be anxious to know if there was gunpowder on Max.  How about gunpowder on the tether?  I would think that a 1st year forensic student could bury this cop.
> Did ANYONE examine the tether for gunpowder?  If Mr. Jesse James' tale were even close to accurate, Coffey and Long and all their commrades would have been in the newspapers.  We aren't that dumb.
> I bet there was some forensic work done at the scene and either the family was paid off to keep quiet, or the CCSO is hiring a "big gun" attorney to get ready for the fight of their life.
> 
> As a taxpayer who pays the salary of Long and others, I would find it repugnant that a penny of my money would go to the Mattias from the department.  Personally, I would rather contribute to a fund, if needed, for the attorney of the Mattias.
> 
> And to someone that suggested that this thread is about the bickering between a couple of individuals, it isn't even close.
> This is a personal matter between decent human beings that love a domestic pet as a family member and are appalled that this cop has shot 3 dogs (2 of which we know nothing about the circumstances), got away with 2 of them, but the 3rd was covered by the National and Local Media.
> 
> Hopefully Hell will freeze over before this abhorent crime is swept under the rug. Everyday that passes without a whisper from Sheriff Coffey and the department causes festering animosity that the public feels for this cop and the leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> What type of fantasy world do you live in?  If an officer is in fear for his safety, from a domestic ANIMAL then he has every right in the world to kill it.  There will be no law suit which will ever make it past summary judgement.  Think logically.  If a dog were attacking you, wouldn't you do whatever you could to stop the attack?
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What type of fantasy world do you live in?  If an officer is in fear for his safety, from a domestic ANIMAL then he has every right in the world to kill it.  There will be no law suit which will ever make it past summary judgement.  Think logically.  If a dog were attacking you, wouldn't you do whatever you could to stop the attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If" the dog was attacking, we do not know this.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If" the dog was attacking, we do not know this.
> 
> 
> 
> We know the officer was bitten.  Do think that happened when the dog was introducing himself?
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> missperky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know the officer was bitten.  Do think that happened when the dog was introducing himself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. Were you there? I know I wasn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. Were you there? I know I wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Well he was treated by an ambulance crew for a dog bite.  So if we are to believe any of this, lets not pic and choose to favor our side.  I by the way don't have a side.
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> missperky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he was treated by an ambulance crew for a dog bite.  So if we are to believe any of this, lets not pic and choose to favor our side.  I by the way don't have a side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where was it said he was treated for a dog bite? I missed that.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

In the very first news article.  Also, didn't you talk about the ambulance crew saying he had a minor bite?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> In the very first news article.  Also, didn't you talk about the ambulance crew saying he had a minor bite?



From the 1st article:
Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer..:shrug:

Not that I know of.


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> From the 1st article:
> Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer..:shrug:
> 
> Not that I know of.


 well who was the ambulance called for?  Max?


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> well who was the ambulance called for?  Max?




It was a cop, so who knows. Maybe it's procedure, how the #### would I know?


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> It was a cop, so who knows. Maybe it's procedure, how the #### would I know?


 It's not procedure to call an ambulance for a police officer merely because he shot a dog.


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> It's not procedure to call an ambulance for a police officer merely because he shot a dog.


Ok.


----------



## JesseJames

The officer hasn't made a comment--- found out why.  Turns out that when officers are under official investigations... they get a "gag order" during which if they speak about the incident, to anyone who they have not been given written permission to speak to, they are punished.  The police departments actually make them sign a statement acknowledging they have received the order.
The officer cannot even speak to his spouse or other officers. He even has to get permission to speak with his attorney about it (which I suppose would always be given).


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Fantasyland*



			
				missperky said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If" the dog was attacking, we do not know this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, "IF".
> Trouble is, the track record of this guy is deplorable.  Check out the court cases on the Maryland State Website.  He's got some stuff going on.
> 
> Let's reiterate this again.  He has shot 3 dogs!  Anyone with half a brain
> will recognize how the dog was shot.  I bet the family has had a  private investigator to analyze what happened, and along with the records from the vet, it should be pretty conclusive.
> 
> With the officers hanging out on this blogsite, they seem to be brainwashed by the good old boys.  This area is changing big time, and the good old boy network is being slowly but carefully dismantled by voters new to the area.
> 
> I found two other blogsites "Topix" as well as the website for purebred German Shepherds.  These pet owners are "PISSED TO THE HILT" over this.
> 
> This guy has goofed up big time.  This is no longer a local issue.  It is now in the hands of the National Humane Society as well as private individuals that want a swift prosecution of this guy.
> 
> With all the stuff adding up, I don't think he has a prayer in hell of getting out of this with his badge.  IMO of course.
> 
> My hat is off to the great officers that do a fabulous job protecting the citizens and their property.  This guy is not one of them.
> 
> If Coffey doesn't come out soon and make a public statement about this, I believe that we should force the commissioners to have a vote of nonconfidence and remove this guy from office.  We don't want to pay anyone that can't get off their "high and mighty" horse and talk with his employer (the Charles County Taxpaying Public).
> 
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/101975.html#101975
> http://www.topix.com/forum/source/wusa/T69TLG7DDK3R0BT54/p2
> http://www.stmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> To everyone, please check out the blog entries, and take a close look at how the officer shot this dog.  If that dog was attacking  him, those bullets would have NEVER gone straight down into the concrete.
> 
> Like several of the pissed off people on the other blogsites, I say this.
> 
> Someone comes onto my property, FOR WHATEVER REASON, and would shoot my dog or a family member, I sure as HELL would grab every weapon I had and start unloading feverishly.
> 
> This bull#### of sweeping this under the rug stinks like holy H*ll.
Click to expand...


----------



## SerenitStables

The family said in their letter that the dog didn't even break skin and didn't rip the officer's pants....that says to me he didn't get attacked. I think he made it bigger then it was. That was an amazing dog....my girl friend has been about 3 feet from him before and he wagged his tail and was happy to see her.

I don't care who you are, if you come on my property and shoot my dog, I will take you to court and sue you...I don't care if I win or not.

Dogs are only protecting their areas. And the paper said that the cop even acknowledged the dog the first time he saw him...so the question arrises....did he provoke him?

He is a dog murderer...no doubt in my mind...he has shot 3 dogs...he needs to be stripped of his badge, fired and sued like h***. No questions asked. And someone needs to look into the department as well...I have family in the CCSO, but they need some help...

JMHO


----------



## JesseJames

Cases on the website are all cases that the officer has been a witness for the state in. Any time he has arrested someone, charged someone for a traffic violation etc. will be on that site. Any officer on the agency with any amount of time, will have many cases show up there.

It is tragic, but in the eyes of the law -- which is created  by the general assembly we elected into office -- Max is just property. The law would say that the cop didn't "murder" Max, as only a human being can be murdered. The cop only damaged some property. You aren't going to have a cop fired for damaging property. Just like the cop who kicks in the front door of a house during a search warrant. He may have kicked in 30 doors, but he won't get fired for damaging 30 doors.

I know that Max was loved and considered a member of the Mattia family -- but you won't get any department in Maryland to look at Max like he was a human being and proceed accordingly.


----------



## JesseJames

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgZZiXPajAc

Check out the video. Had the officer started shooting how many of his rounds would have found their mark? Bear in mind he is hopping backwards on one leg, trying to kick with the other, draw his weapon, aim, be safe, and shoot -- all while being attacked.

You can bet this -- whether Max was tied up or not -- Max wasn't tied up! If the officer could have just backed up, I think he would have. Purely to avoid having to explain why he fired his weapon. Dogs get loose all the time. I have heard officers dispatched on many occassions "For the loose dog." Even "For the vicious loose dog." I betcha' the owners of those dogs, if asked while at work "It is 10:30 am, do you know where your dog is?" they would respond, "Sure s/he is safely at home on the leash out back."


----------



## dawn

I do beleive you can get fired for excessive force, can't you?   And considering the fact that there have been three dogs killed under Mr. Longs watch, I do beleive there is  a limit.   Funny thing is, I knew someone that served child support warrants in charles county before he was promoted to sargent, probably about 4 years ago, and  he NEVER EVER EVER once killed a dog, and he serve warrants for over 10 years.  Amazing, isnt it?  Oh, ,wait maybe he only went to houses where there were no dogs, right?


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgZZiXPajAc
> 
> Check out the video. Had the officer started shooting how many of his rounds would have found their mark? Bear in mind he is hopping backwards on one leg, trying to kick with the other, draw his weapon, aim, be safe, and shoot -- all while being attacked.
> 
> You can bet this -- whether Max was tied up or not -- Max wasn't tied up! If the officer could have just backed up, I think he would have. Purely to avoid having to explain why he fired his weapon. Dogs get loose all the time. I have heard officers dispatched on many occassions "For the loose dog." Even "For the vicious loose dog." I betcha' the owners of those dogs, if asked while at work "It is 10:30 am, do you know where your dog is?" they would respond, "Sure s/he is safely at home on the leash out back."



MAX WAS TIED UP!  It is an easy out for everyone inlcuding the officer to say he was not.  This dog was six years old, they had the same routine very single day for six years.  That dog never ever got loose before and I surely doubt that he got loose just this one day.  You sir do not know where they live, if Max dog got loose he would have been road kill.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Check out the video with Rodney King*



			
				JesseJames said:
			
		

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgZZiXPajAc
> 
> Check out the video. Had the officer started shooting how many of his rounds would have found their mark? Bear in mind he is hopping backwards on one leg, trying to kick with the other, draw his weapon, aim, be safe, and shoot -- all while being attacked.
> 
> You can bet this -- whether Max was tied up or not -- Max wasn't tied up! If the officer could have just backed up, I think he would have. Purely to avoid having to explain why he fired his weapon. Dogs get loose all the time. I have heard officers dispatched on many occassions "For the loose dog." Even "For the vicious loose dog." I betcha' the owners of those dogs, if asked while at work "It is 10:30 am, do you know where your dog is?" they would respond, "Sure s/he is safely at home on the leash out back."



I don't espouse Rodney King and his ilk, but if it wasn't for that video, a whole bunch of cops would have gotten off scott-free.

That video proves nothing except that a clear-thinking cop used a taser on a dog that left it's yard and tried to attack in the street.

You ask how many many rounds would have found their mark?  I say as many or more that he used on the last two dogs.  I'm still sticking to my questions:
1)  Was there gunpowder on Max?
2)  What do the vet records reflect?
3)  Why is Coffey and the crew silent on this autrocity?

Hey all you guys reading the thread.  Call Wayne Cooper on Monday and start 
demanding that he forces these guys to make a public statement.  

We pay these people.  Why in God's name don't we demand answers?  They sure as hell aren't above that.  They serve us, not the other way around!


----------



## JesseJames

Max may have been 6 years old... I doubt that he NEVER got loose. That is a bold statement. I have known several cops who never shot a dog, and I have known a couple who have. I know several who retired w/out killing a dog, but that doesn't minimize the officers who did have to shoot a dog.

Each officer's experiences differ. Officer Long has had the misfortune to be sent to calls where he ultimately had to shoot dogs.

Gunpowder on Max? Most likely it WILL be there. I would say that, for Long's sake all the rounds should have been at pretty close to "point blank" range. If the incident occurred where the leash was laying on the ground, there may have been some gunpowder residue on the leash as well.

I don't believe Max was tied up -- no officer would shoot him otherwise. There is no point in shooting Max. The cop has too much to lose. We are all basing our argument on a "tied up" dog. I think Max got loose, even if it was because the cop was on the property.

Sheriff Coffey is most likely not going to comment to the press on the shooting of a "loose dog that attacked an officer and had to be put down to stop the attack" as to most people that is an "open and closed case".


----------



## JesseJames

dawn said:
			
		

> MAX WAS TIED UP!  It is an easy out for everyone inlcuding the officer to say he was not.  This dog was six years old, they had the same routine very single day for six years.  That dog never ever got loose before and I surely doubt that he got loose just this one day.  You sir do not know where they live, if Max dog got loose he would have been road kill.




I do know where the couple live. In fact there happens to have been, in the last couple of days that I have driven past there, another dark brown German Shepherd which IS LOOSE and just hanging around a tree across from the signs the Mattias have put up. The dog isn't road kill yet!!!


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> That video proves nothing except that a clear-thinking cop used a taser on a dog that left it's yard and tried to attack in the street.



The video proves that dog attacks happen VERY quickly. It proves that, had that officer been alone, as Long was, that dog would have been shot. Only because there is another officer who has time to draw and prepare his taser while the dog begins its attack on his partner, is the dog tasered, instead of killed. Basically the one cop is bait while the other one has more time to react. Take out the second officer, as the news reporter says "and the officer has the right to shoot."

I hope that everyone watching that video would allow the officer to shoot to defend himself, or nearby citizens, including children.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*From another board*

funk man 	DATELINE NBC hopeful to pickup Max's story  (0 replies) 	03 Jún# 2007 - 00:06
Reply 	

Great idea Echo. I emailed them as well. I also contacted IA for the state police in MD. The 23 min convo. was very interesting to say the least. A couple of surprises will be out soon that dont favor this baffoon deputy.  

Check out this link:
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/103629.html


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> I do know where the couple live. In fact there happens to have been, in the last couple of days that I have driven past there, another dark brown German Shepherd which IS LOOSE and just hanging around a tree across from the signs the Mattias have put up. The dog isn't road kill yet!!!




Funny I travelled down 231 twice today, even went to the farm down from the Mattias house it and bought some hanging baskets, I never saw a dog.


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Max may have been 6 years old... I doubt that he NEVER got loose. That is a bold statement. I have known several cops who never shot a dog, and I have known a couple who have. I know several who retired w/out killing a dog, but that doesn't minimize the officers who did have to shoot a dog.
> 
> Each officer's experiences differ. Officer Long has had the misfortune to be sent to calls where he ultimately had to shoot dogs.
> 
> Gunpowder on Max? Most likely it WILL be there. I would say that, for Long's sake all the rounds should have been at pretty close to "point blank" range. If the incident occurred where the leash was laying on the ground, there may have been some gunpowder residue on the leash as well.
> 
> I don't believe Max was tied up -- no officer would shoot him otherwise. There is no point in shooting Max. The cop has too much to lose. We are all basing our argument on a "tied up" dog. I think Max got loose, even if it was because the cop was on the property.
> 
> Sheriff Coffey is most likely not going to comment to the press on the shooting of a "loose dog that attacked an officer and had to be put down to stop the attack" as to most people that is an "open and closed case".




Mr. James you have your opinoin on this, then please enlighten us as to why when the Mattia son pulled up at the house the officers truck was there, with no sign of the officer, the son walked up the walk saw the dog laying there, still no officer, the son calls the dad, still no officer, the son scoops of the dog, puts the dog in the pick up and still no officer.  The father arrives home approximately 15 minutes later, the ambulance, sargent and animal control are there.  Why didnt the officer come to the son when he arrived home???  why because when he realized some one was coming home he thought oh s**t, now what!  So he called in that he was attacked.  


So Mr. James, tell me where you think the officer was and why if for sake of argument he was there to serve a warrant to a son for child support -- why wouldnt he confront the son when he came home?


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Mr. James is just an apologist for the dept.*



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> Mr. James you have your opinoin on this, then please enlighten us as to why when the Mattia son pulled up at the house the officers truck was there, with no sign of the officer, the son walked up the walk saw the dog laying there, still no officer, the son calls the dad, still no officer, the son scoops of the dog, puts the dog in the pick up and still no officer.  The father arrives home approximately 15 minutes later, the ambulance, sargent and animal control are there.  Why didnt the officer come to the son when he arrived home???  why because when he realized some one was coming home he thought oh s**t, now what!  So he called in that he was attacked.
> 
> 
> So Mr. James, tell me where you think the officer was and why if for sake of argument he was there to serve a warrant to a son for child support -- why wouldnt he confront the son when he came home?



Dawn, don't waste your time on this guy. He just started posting on the forum, and looking at his posts, it looks like he works for the dept. in some capacity.  
Checking on University of Michigan Law School and their various citings of cases throughout the country, it looks like Long's goose will be cooked, if ballistics and forensics prove that Max was on the lease at the time.  This guys story doesn't add up.  Please check the links to the other blog site that I've posted.  They've had a ton of people that have email Sheriff Coffey's email, and it was recently reported that it no longer works.
I'll check it myself.  
I would be anxious to have a satellite image of the area.  If we can find someone that works for Goddard or another firm with a satellite using imagery, 
we should be able to get more information as to whether Max had broken free.

At the pedigree board for GS's, someone did an excellent analysis of what probably happened, as he knew information from the scene, and also discussed the pictures on St. Mary's Online.  

Please go to the help Max link on site.  

There appears to be someone in the know that posted some interesting points questioning why Max's lower jaw was blown off.  If you believe that Long was attacked by the dog, then there is no way on God's green earth that he could have shot the dog in the muzzle and not have injured himself at the same time.  A pathologist would be able to tell if Max was shot first in the muzzle, or in the back.  According to the "Maryland Judiciary Case online records", Mr. Christopher T. Long apparently, by the public record, has some things going on in the Maryland courts.
Check out this link:  http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis

I advise anyone that gives a rat's butt about Max and enforcing the rights of the property owner in the State of Maryland to go to this trial.

Keep calling the CCSO and demanding a public statement.  
ANYONE that has access to satellite imagery (dynamic), please check the date and time as to what the hell went on at Max's house.

If Max broke off the lease, and the muzzle was shot off, we would see gunfire PAST the radius of the lease.  If we do, then the case will be closed.

That will prove that Long shot Max while on the lease.

I would advise anyone having contacts at the Naval Research Lab to get in touch with the Satellite Division.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Dawn, don't waste your time on this guy. He just started posting on the forum, and looking at his posts, it looks like he works for the dept. in some capacity.
> Checking on University of Michigan Law School and their various citings of cases throughout the country, it looks like Long's goose will be cooked, if ballistics and forensics prove that Max was on the lease at the time.  This guys story doesn't add up.  Please check the links to the other blog site that I've posted.  They've had a ton of people that have email Sheriff Coffey's email, and it was recently reported that it no longer works.
> I'll check it myself.
> I would be anxious to have a satellite image of the area.  If we can find someone that works for Goddard or another firm with a satellite using imagery,
> we should be able to get more information as to whether Max had broken free.
> 
> At the pedigree board for GS's, someone did an excellent analysis of what probably happened, as he knew information from the scene, and also discussed the pictures on St. Mary's Online.
> 
> Please go to the help Max link on site.
> 
> There appears to be someone in the know that posted some interesting points questioning why Max's lower jaw was blown off.  If you believe that Long was attacked by the dog, then there is no way on God's green earth that he could have shot the dog in the muzzle and not have injured himself at the same time.  A pathologist would be able to tell if Max was shot first in the muzzle, or in the back.  According to the "Maryland Judiciary Case online records", Mr. Christopher T. Long apparently, by the public record, has some things going on in the Maryland courts.
> Check out this link:  http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis
> 
> I advise anyone that gives a rat's butt about Max and enforcing the rights of the property owner in the State of Maryland to go to this trial.
> 
> Keep calling the CCSO and demanding a public statement.
> ANYONE that has access to satellite imagery (dynamic), please check the date and time as to what the hell went on at Max's house.
> 
> If Max broke off the lease, and the muzzle was shot off, we would see gunfire PAST the radius of the lease.  If we do, then the case will be closed.
> 
> That will prove that Long shot Max while on the lease.
> 
> I would advise anyone having contacts at the Naval Research Lab to get in touch with the Satellite Division.



Maybe we can get CSI: Benedict to look at the case!!!! Use the Spectronometer 2000 to determine what Long had for lunch and see if it made him more agressive to dogs. Maybe Long had a bad childhood and is taking it out on any dog he can find. No wait, he purposely joined the sheriff's office in a mass conspiracy to kill Max. Worked for 7 years knowing he would some day get his chance at Max. The other killings were just to throw us off the scent. Maybe the CIA is involved, or perhaps the Black Panther Party.....Enough already. This thread has gotten so far off the topic it's comical. I'm sure Long did not wake up on this day and say, "Today, I'm going to murder a dog". Most people on here have already found Long guilty. So much for our system. Hang him!!! Hang him high! Maybe we can all get on with our lives. Would that make you idiots happy?...just my opinion.


----------



## JesseJames

dawn said:
			
		

> Mr. James you have your opinoin on this, then please enlighten us as to why when the Mattia son pulled up at the house the officers truck was there, with no sign of the officer, the son walked up the walk saw the dog laying there, still no officer, the son calls the dad, still no officer, the son scoops of the dog, puts the dog in the pick up and still no officer.  The father arrives home approximately 15 minutes later, the ambulance, sargent and animal control are there.  Why didnt the officer come to the son when he arrived home???  why because when he realized some one was coming home he thought oh s**t, now what!  So he called in that he was attacked.
> 
> 
> So Mr. James, tell me where you think the officer was and why if for sake of argument he was there to serve a warrant to a son for child support -- why wouldnt he confront the son when he came home?



Yeah... that one is a tuff one there I admit. I do wonder where the officer was. He was in an unmarked vehicle, which MIGHT be why the son didn't know there was a cop on the scene. I couldn't tell you why the cop wasn't still where Max was. I know that is where  most of us would have been -- the scene would probably be considered a "crime scene" or something and would have to be "guarded" so that no one could tamper or change anything.

I wouldn't want someone to come home and hook the leash back up to Max, or worse actually take him to the vet before other investigating officers arrive. Could you imagine being alone, shooting someone, then someone else coming along and picking up the body to take it to the hospital? So, in fairness Dawn... I don't know.

Obviously certain wierd events went down in a certain order, and here we are. Also I am glad to hear the dog got picked up. As of Tuesday or Wednesday he was in the area. I didn't see a body, so hopefully s/he didn't get run over.


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Dawn, don't waste your time on this guy. He just started posting on the forum, and looking at his posts, it looks like he works for the dept. in some capacity.
> 
> At the pedigree board for GS's, someone did an excellent analysis of what probably happened, as he knew information from the scene, and also discussed the pictures on St. Mary's Online.
> 
> Please go to the help Max link on site.
> 
> http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis
> 
> I advise anyone that gives a rat's butt about Max and enforcing the rights of the property owner in the State of Maryland to go to this trial.
> 
> Max broke off the lease, and the muzzle was shot off, we would see gunfire PAST the radius of the lease.  If we do, then the case will be closed.
> 
> That will prove that Long shot Max while on the lease.
> 
> I would advise anyone having contacts at the Naval Research Lab to get in touch with the Satellite Division.



Wow... Actually I heard about the case, a friend told me this forum was here so I checked it out. This one struck a nerve with me as well, so I began posting. Not knowing what happened and knowing a few cops -- strangely I trust the ones in Charles County I began. I wasn't there (Incidentally NONE OF US WERE -- EVERY CONCLUSION IS PURELY CONJECTURE). Believe me, the Sheriff's Department and I don't exactly see eye to eye on many issues, but this case is simple. 

I may change my mind depending on how they decide to serve a warrant on me, on my property sometime... but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. 

I find it ridiculous that we are willing to trust a dog we do not know (who behaved like any good dog would with a stranger on the property and attack) over an officer. Trust me, unless the cop had a court order to go out and kill Max -- why would he?

I know that dogs attack and understand that, if a deputy is on someone's property for a legal reason (serving ANY kind of warrant with reasonable belief a person is there is a legal reason) and a dog (whoever's -- even a property owner's) begins it's attack, the deputy is allowed to protect his own life or someone else's. He will eliminate that danger as quickly as he is able, using however many bullets he needs, carrying whatever gun he happens to be.

I have said before, Max was in the right and so was the cop. Where they overlapped, and with no one there to call Max off, the cop was in the right -- if the dog were loose. Dogs get loose. By the way... Satellite imagery is a good idea... if an imagery satellite was in the area at the time. Good suggestion. 

If Max backed up at all during the attack(but not run away), and he may have when the bullets rang out, then the officers next bullet might likely have struck Max in the snout, at 5 to 10 feet away from the cop. Is that a possibility?

Where is the posting listing what actually may have happened by "someone in the know"?

By the way, my friend Clint was recently attacked by a dog, literally just before this incident. The dog stopped attacking a 9 year old girl, on the dog's own property, and began attacking Clint who came to her aid. He took many stitches to the hand. We discussed at the time that, had Clint had a gun at the time... he'd have shot the dog. Incidentally that dog stopped attacking Clint once they retreated to the edge of the dog's property. The girl was a guest of the property owner, Clint responded to her screams. The owner had the dog put down, and tested for rabies at his own expense, to the tune of $200 +. The property owner want to settle out of court for damages.


----------



## JesseJames

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Maybe we can get CSI: Benedict to look at the case!!!! Use the Spectronometer 2000 to determine what Long had for lunch and see if it made him more agressive to dogs. Maybe Long had a bad childhood and is taking it out on any dog he can find. No wait, he purposely joined the sheriff's office in a mass conspiracy to kill Max. Worked for 7 years knowing he would some day get his chance at Max. The other killings were just to throw us off the scent. Maybe the CIA is involved, or perhaps the Black Panther Party.....Enough already. This thread has gotten so far off the topic it's comical. I'm sure Long did not wake up on this day and say, "Today, I'm going to murder a dog". Most people on here have already found Long guilty. So much for our system. Hang him!!! Hang him high! Maybe we can all get on with our lives. Would that make you idiots happy?...just my opinion.



HANG HIM!!! That is the least of what people are saying.

Believe it or not... on other sites they are threatening this guys family!!! If he has children, they have actually said "Maybe someone should shoot them right in front of him."

Come on people... though Max was loved and cherished etc., Max was not a human being.   If he were, he wouldn't have been tied up in the back yard  :shrug: and the cop would have had a conversation with him explaining why he was there. Max would have told the cop that the son no longer lived there. Max's purpose probably wasn't even guard dog -- but that was the job he stepped up to on that day.

Has anyone turned the son in yet? Before they check yet one more address for him where a dog may be loose?


----------



## General Lee

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Maybe we can get CSI: Benedict to look at the case!!!! Use the Spectronometer 2000 to determine what Long had for lunch and see if it made him more agressive to dogs. Maybe Long had a bad childhood and is taking it out on any dog he can find. No wait, he purposely joined the sheriff's office in a mass conspiracy to kill Max. Worked for 7 years knowing he would some day get his chance at Max. The other killings were just to throw us off the scent. Maybe the CIA is involved, or perhaps the Black Panther Party.....Enough already. This thread has gotten so far off the topic it's comical. I'm sure Long did not wake up on this day and say, "Today, I'm going to murder a dog". Most people on here have already found Long guilty. So much for our system. Hang him!!! Hang him high! Maybe we can all get on with our lives. Would that make you idiots happy?...just my opinion.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> funk man 	DATELINE NBC hopeful to pickup Max's story  (0 replies) 	03 Jún# 2007 - 00:06
> Reply
> 
> Great idea Echo. I emailed them as well. I also contacted IA for the state police in MD. The 23 min convo. was very interesting to say the least. A couple of surprises will be out soon that dont favor this baffoon deputy.
> 
> Check out this link:
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/103629.html


 The state police IA have no jurisdiction with this officer.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> I do beleive you can get fired for excessive force, can't you?   And considering the fact that there have been three dogs killed under Mr. Longs watch, I do beleive there is  a limit.   Funny thing is, I knew someone that served child support warrants in charles county before he was promoted to sargent, probably about 4 years ago, and  he NEVER EVER EVER once killed a dog, and he serve warrants for over 10 years.  Amazing, isnt it?  Oh, ,wait maybe he only went to houses where there were no dogs, right?


 Your a graduate of St. Mary's County Public Schools aren't you?


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I don't espouse Rodney King and his ilk, but if it wasn't for that video, a whole bunch of cops would have gotten off scott-free.
> 
> That video proves nothing except that a clear-thinking cop used a taser on a dog that left it's yard and tried to attack in the street.
> 
> You ask how many many rounds would have found their mark?  I say as many or more that he used on the last two dogs.  I'm still sticking to my questions:
> 1)  Was there gunpowder on Max?
> 2)  What do the vet records reflect?
> 3)  Why is Coffey and the crew silent on this autrocity?
> 
> Hey all you guys reading the thread.  Call Wayne Cooper on Monday and start
> demanding that he forces these guys to make a public statement.
> 
> We pay these people.  Why in God's name don't we demand answers?  They sure as hell aren't above that.  They serve us, not the other way around!


 The Sheriff's office gave a statement.  They stated they feel bad for the Mattias but keep this in perspective.  What more do you want them to say?


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Here's what I want*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> The Sheriff's office gave a statement.  They stated they feel bad for the Mattias but keep this in perspective.  What more do you want them to say?



I want Coffey's boss to say that they will have Officer Long suspended without pay while the FBI and the American Human Society investigate the department for covering up Long's 2 other shootings as well as this one.
I'd also like to see the story be covered by investigative journalists.


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> funk man 	Great idea Echo. I emailed them as well. I also contacted IA for the state police in MD. The 23 min convo. was very interesting to say the least. A couple of surprises will be out soon that dont favor this baffoon deputy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that during YOUR conversation with the State Police your point of view was that Max was tied up. What you can be sure of is that Long's side of the story includes "the loose dog who began to attack him" and that will end all inquiry.
> 
> Tell your IA contact at the State Police that an officer, on anyone's property serving a Bench Warrant (meaning looking for the son to arrest him) that a loose dog began to attack that officer near the back door of the house and s/he will tell you the officer is in the right to shoot the dog, with whatever gun s/he is authorized by the department to carry, however many times it takes to stop the attack.
Click to expand...


----------



## vraiblonde

JesseJames said:
			
		

> (Incidentally NONE OF US WERE -- EVERY CONCLUSION IS PURELY CONJECTURE).


I'm sorry - what did you say?  Are you insinuating that all these fine animal lovers aren't the Amazing Kreskin and cannot read into bare bones stories and divine the truth??  That the dog's owner could possibly be embellishing the story and not necessarily be telling the complete truth???

This, sir, means war!


----------



## 88stringslouie

JesseJames said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funk man 	Great idea Echo. I emailed them as well. I also contacted IA for the state police in MD. The 23 min convo. was very interesting to say the least. A couple of surprises will be out soon that dont favor this baffoon deputy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that during YOUR conversation with the State Police your point of view was that Max was tied up. What you can be sure of is that Long's side of the story includes "the loose dog who began to attack him" and that will end all inquiry.
> 
> Tell your IA contact at the State Police that an officer, on anyone's property serving a Bench Warrant (meaning looking for the son to arrest him) that a loose dog began to attack that officer near the back door of the house and s/he will tell you the officer is in the right to shoot the dog, with whatever gun s/he is authorized by the department to carry, however many times it takes to stop the attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much public outcry regarding this shooting, Long's word will NOT be taken at face value.
> This guy has shot two other dogs (reminder).  I am calling the commissioners today and raising hell.
> 
> It is my tax money that provides that guy with food and shelter.  I do not want to provide that for anyone that has shot 3 dogs, unless there is proof beyond a doubt that he is in the right.
> 
> Like I said, we need the FBI to investigate possible abuse.  We need the Humane Society to take them to court.  Those EMT records need to be presented under oath.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## calamity jane

The FBI? I would hope the FBI would have more important things to do, like chasing terrorists who want to kill human beings.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your a graduate of St. Mary's County Public Schools aren't you?




Nope.  You are wrong with just about everything that comes out of your mouth, arent you?


----------



## Tinkerbell

calamity jane said:
			
		

> The FBI? I would hope the FBI would have more important things to do, like chasing terrorists who want to kill human beings.


 I feel bad for the dog and owners and all, but the FBI? Isn't that a BIT much for a dog shooting? I mean, come on, they have kidnapped and murdered children to worry about. Never mind terrorists. And kidnapped and murdered adults. And serial killers. And all the white collar crimes. Let's get a little perspective here.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I want Coffey's boss to say that they will have Officer Long suspended without pay while the FBI and the American Human Society investigate the department for covering up Long's 2 other shootings as well as this one.
> I'd also like to see the story be covered by investigative journalists.


 I wanted a pony when I was 12, but never got one, just like you'll never get any of these things.  The law enforcement officer's bill of rights prohibit the officer from being suspended without pay while and investigation is on going.  Also, do you have any real information about the other two alleged dog shootings or are you just running off at the mouth?


----------



## JesseJames

*We cant just create a fantasy just to investigate it.*



			
				88stringslouie said:
			
		

> JesseJames said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much public outcry regarding this shooting, Long's word will NOT be taken at face value.
> This guy has shot two other dogs (reminder).  I am calling the commissioners today and raising hell.
> 
> It is my tax money that provides that guy with food and shelter.  I do not want to provide that for anyone that has shot 3 dogs, unless there is proof beyond a doubt that he is in the right.
> 
> Like I said, we need the FBI to investigate possible abuse.  We need the Humane Society to take them to court.  Those EMT records need to be presented under oath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long's word is all we have. It WILL be taken at face value. The Mattia family can only say they LEFT Max tied up, the cannot UN-EQUIVICALLY say Max didn't get loose. Everyone knows dogs get loose, and most people believe that is what likely happened. Satellite imagery won't likely be available.
> 
> The FBI will NOT investigate an officer shooting a dog (destroying property). The other two shootings of dogs were already investigated, and since Long was back on the street -- found JUSTIFIED.
> 
> No one out there will believe that Long purchased a .357 magnum after waiting the required time, got whatever approval may be needed to carry it (as I believe most officers standard weapon is a .40 cal) waited for the closest reason he could come up with to go to the Mattia residence, on a day he knew the sweetest dog in Charles County would have been tied up out back, sneak into the range of his leash, just to start shooting the dog, and deliberately miss the critical zones so that he could keep shooting and even then still leave the dog barely breathing, then walk away.
> 
> No one out there responsible enough to investigate this, and in the position to do so, will forget reason enough to believe all of that. Believing that is what it will take for this to go any further. The sadness is undeniable, but blaming Long for defending himself, and coming up with any other story to make it seem as though Long had some other motive... crosses into a fantasy most will not venture into. :shrug:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mainman

FBI?????  This thread is so far out of control it would need a plane ride, a trip on a train and 5 bus transfers to get even close to a reality check...


----------



## tom88

There is so much public outcry regarding this shooting, Long's word will NOT be taken at face value.
This guy has shot two other dogs (reminder).  I am calling the commissioners today and raising hell.

It is my tax money that provides that guy with food and shelter.  I do not want to provide that for anyone that has shot 3 dogs, unless there is proof beyond a doubt that he is in the right.

Like I said, we need the FBI to investigate possible abuse.  We need the Humane Society to take them to court.  Those EMT records need to be presented under oath. [/QUOTE]

The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction in this matter.  The EMT records are private due to HIPPA, and you madam are an idiot!


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> JesseJames said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funk man 	Great idea Echo. I emailed them as well. I also contacted IA for the state police in MD. The 23 min convo. was very interesting to say the least. A couple of surprises will be out soon that dont favor this baffoon deputy.
> 
> There is so much public outcry regarding this shooting, Long's word will NOT be taken at face value.
> This guy has shot two other dogs (reminder).  I am calling the commissioners today and raising hell.
> 
> It is my tax money that provides that guy with food and shelter.  I do not want to provide that for anyone that has shot 3 dogs, unless there is proof beyond a doubt that he is in the right.
> 
> Like I said, we need the FBI to investigate possible abuse.  We need the Humane Society to take them to court.  Those EMT records need to be presented under oath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's right. The FBI has more important things to do. The Maryland State Police IA has no authority over any department in Maryland except their own. The only exception is if a local agency wants them to investigate. I'm sure the CCSD has qualified people to investigate this. It appears more people care about that dog than they do about the Mattia's grandchild not getting his child support.....just my opinion.
> 
> P.S. The FBI lists PETA as a potential terrosrist oragnization. FYI
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## pingrr

If people real need things looked into.  They can always go down to the Dojo and hire some Ninjas to do their bidding.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JesseJames said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's right. The FBI has more important things to do. The Maryland State Police IA has no authority over any department in Maryland except their own. The only exception is if a local agency wants them to investigate. I'm sure the CCSD has qualified people to investigate this. It appears more people care about that dog than they do about the Mattia's grandchild not getting his child support.....just my opinion.
> 
> P.S. The FBI lists PETA as a potential terrosrist oragnization. FYI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, quite honestly, I dont know if the child is taken care of or not, but the point of this thread is that Max died at the hands of a police officer while chained.   Child support is just as touchy subject with me, so I will save people the drama of my thoughts on that issue.    I am sure that if the mother of the child is in need, she will depend on the system that so many other people depend on and which our taxes pay for to get assistance.
> 
> This thread is about an officer that is on patrol of our streets that has murdered three dogs and has been held unaccountable for any of them.  This is not about an issue of child support.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank, quite honestly, I dont know if the child is taken care of or not, but the point of this thread is that Max died at the hands of a police officer while chained.   Child support is just as touchy subject with me, so I will save people the drama of my thoughts on that issue.    I am sure that if the mother of the child is in need, she will depend on the system that so many other people depend on and which our taxes pay for to get assistance.
> 
> This thread is about an officer that is on patrol of our streets that has murdered three dogs and has been held unaccountable for any of them.  This is not about an issue of child support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are convicting him without any evidence. Do you have some sort of psychic powers or a crystal ball? If you do, I want the Lotto numbers for saturday. Get real. As I have said before and I'll say it again, so listen up. I do not know Long, but I am certain that he did not wake up that day with the intention of shooting that dog. My point has always been that if the Mattia's dirtbag son would just fulfill his obligation (and responsibility) and pay his damn child support, this whole thing could have been avoided. Maybe the police should talk to their neighbors and see if this dog is as friendly as the Mattia's claim he was. We know this: FACT: Long shot the dog. It is not murder, it is self defense. I don't care if he shot it 1 time 7 times or a hundred, he felt threatened and shot the dog. It was his right to do so. So unless any of you were there and saw what happened, how can you pass judgement? What gives you the right?? As far as I'm concerned, Long is a hero who was doing his job tracking down dead-beat parents. This officer you speak of, who served warrants, maybe he was the lazy one looking for the "easy arrest" and that's why he never came into contact with any dogs. This thread is worse than the Hatfields and McCoys. Get over it.....just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Richard Cranium

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do, I want the Lotto numbers for saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your small change jackpots....give me the numbers on Tuesday and Friday.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you are convicting him without any evidence. Do you have some sort of psychic powers or a crystal ball? If you do, I want the Lotto numbers for saturday. Get real. As I have said before and I'll say it again, so listen up. I do not know Long, but I am certain that he did not wake up that day with the intention of shooting that dog. My point has always been that if the Mattia's dirtbag son would just fulfill his obligation (and responsibility) and pay his damn child support, this whole thing could have been avoided. Maybe the police should talk to their neighbors and see if this dog is as friendly as the Mattia's claim he was. We know this: FACT: Long shot the dog. It is not murder, it is self defense. I don't care if he shot it 1 time 7 times or a hundred, he felt threatened and shot the dog. It was his right to do so. So unless any of you were there and saw what happened, how can you pass judgement? What gives you the right?? As far as I'm concerned, Long is a hero who was doing his job tracking down dead-beat parents. This officer you speak of, who served warrants, maybe he was the lazy one looking for the "easy arrest" and that's why he never came into contact with any dogs. This thread is worse than the Hatfields and McCoys. Get over it.....just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok just as much as I am convicting Long you are defending him -- were you there???????? NO!   so how can you claim it was SELF-DEFENSE??????  Just as much as I claim murder you claim self-defense, but you critize me for not being there???
> 
> No, Long did not wake up and say I am going to shoot this dog today, but FACT is, he did kill the dog.   I dont know if he had a bad day, I dont know if he doesnt like dogs in particular, I dont know and frankly I dont care.  I know he killed three dogs and that is unacceptable!
> 
> The officer I speak of, was far from lazy, he would do any kind of tactic to arrest a person whether, dress as a pizza delivery person, claiming to be a lost individual and needing help, so no sorry -- far from lazy just a damn good cop (in my opinion).
> 
> and I want so bad to argue with you about the child support issue.  But i wont -- all I will say is stop worrying if he paid his support or not -- that is not the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok just as much as I am convicting Long you are defending him -- were you there???????? NO!   so how can you claim it was SELF-DEFENSE??????  Just as much as I claim murder you claim self-defense, but you critize me for not being there???
> 
> No, Long did not wake up and say I am going to shoot this dog today, but FACT is, he did kill the dog.   I dont know if he had a bad day, I dont know if he doesnt like dogs in particular, I dont know and frankly I dont care.  I know he killed three dogs and that is unacceptable!
> 
> The officer I speak of, was far from lazy, he would do any kind of tactic to arrest a person whether, dress as a pizza delivery person, claiming to be a lost individual and needing help, so no sorry -- far from lazy just a damn good cop (in my opinion).
> 
> and I want so bad to argue with you about the child support issue.  But i wont -- all I will say is stop worrying if he paid his support or not -- that is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it's not!!! That's the whole point. The Mattia's care more about that stupid dog than they do about their grandchild getting his child support. So what you are saying is, let the dog bite and maul you, and for God's sake, don't defend yourself?? I can see the headline now, "Officer Murdered by Dog". You'll make a fine lawyer...just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it's not!!! That's the whole point. The Mattia's care more about that stupid dog than they do about their grandchild getting his child support. So what you are saying is, let the dog bite and maul you, and for God's sake, don't defend yourself?? I can see the headline now, "Officer Murdered by Dog". You'll make a fine lawyer...just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE WRONG!  YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE DOG ATTACKED THIS PERSON WE WILL CALL AN OFFICER OF THE LAW!  WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THE DOG BIT -- THAT IS THE OFFICERS WORD, WE HAVE NO PROOF.  All we know for a fact is he went to the house to serve a warrant for child support, we dont even know if the kid is his.
> 
> THE POINT IS MAX WAS SHOT AND KILLED.  I dont care one way or another about the child support issue, I could care less if he pays or if doesnt.  This dog was on his own property and was shot DEAD -- point blank -- what dont you understand.  Are you the grandfather of this kid?????? is this your daughter taking him to court???????  THE ISSUE IS THE COP WAS AT THE WRONG HOUSE, SHOT AND KILLED A FAMILY PET THAT WAS TIED UP, WHO CARES WHY HE WAS THERE, THE POINT IS HE KILLED A FAMILY PET.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Charles

dawn said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE WRONG!  YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE DOG ATTACKED THIS PERSON WE WILL CALL AN OFFICER OF THE LAW!  WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THE DOG BIT -- THAT IS THE OFFICERS WORD, WE HAVE NO PROOF.  All we know for a fact is he went to the house to serve a warrant for child support, we dont even know if the kid is his.
> 
> THE POINT IS MAX WAS SHOT AND KILLED.  I dont care one way or another about the child support issue, I could care less if he pays or if doesnt.  This dog was on his own property and was shot DEAD -- point blank -- what dont you understand.  Are you the grandfather of this kid?????? is this your daughter taking him to court???????  THE ISSUE IS THE COP WAS AT THE WRONG HOUSE, SHOT AND KILLED A FAMILY PET THAT WAS TIED UP, WHO CARES WHY HE WAS THERE, THE POINT IS HE KILLED A FAMILY PET.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU ARE WRONG!  YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE DOG ATTACKED THIS PERSON WE WILL CALL AN OFFICER OF THE LAW!  WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THE DOG BIT -- THAT IS THE OFFICERS WORD, WE HAVE NO PROOF.  All we know for a fact is he went to the house to serve a warrant for child support, we dont even know if the kid is his.
> 
> THE POINT IS MAX WAS SHOT AND KILLED.  I dont care one way or another about the child support issue, I could care less if he pays or if doesnt.  This dog was on his own property and was shot DEAD -- point blank -- what dont you understand.  Are you the grandfather of this kid?????? is this your daughter taking him to court???????  THE ISSUE IS THE COP WAS AT THE WRONG HOUSE, SHOT AND KILLED A FAMILY PET THAT WAS TIED UP, WHO CARES WHY HE WAS THERE, THE POINT IS HE KILLED A FAMILY PET.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, hopefully the father of your children won't run out and not pay support, because some officer may have to kill a dog trying to collect for you. Hopefully none of your dogs turn on you or you come into contact with a stray dog, and hopefully he won't bother you. Long have every right to be there. That jack-ass put that address down on all his court and child support paperwork. (Open to the public at the courthouse). How was Long to know he was not there? Why don't you call the Sheriff's Dept and offer your psychic ability because you know Long was not bitten and he murdered that dog in cold blood. You could help them track fugitives and perhaps pick the winners at Pimlico. God you are sooooo smart!!!...just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

Thank you Charles, is it because I have an opinion and vocal about it?    

Is there a thumbnail for jerk?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Thank you Charles, is it because I have an opinion and vocal about it?
> 
> Is there a thumbnail for jerk?


 If there were dawn I am sure you would know where it is.  You are the most irrational emotional person I have ever seen on one of these forums.  You don't want witty debate, more like you want to impose your opinion and offer conjecture rather than fact.  Here are facts!  The officer was there legally!  The officer was bitten!  The family member of the Mattias brought the officer there by falsifying his address.  He is a deadbeat!  FACT!


----------



## Max's Mom

*Response*

MAX UPDATE!

Thank you Dawn and all the other supporters we have had regarding justice for Max.  On Saturday, June 2nd,  we received a letter from the Charles County Sheriff's Office stating the case has been turned over to Internal Affairs for an investigation regarding the complaint we filed against Officer Long.  Sheriff Coffey made a personal visit to our home last Wednesday, May 30th and reviewed the "crime scene".  My husband showed him the 2 bullet holes in the concrete and the blood stains which are still there even after I washed it with bleach and the 7 gun casings which my husband found 3 days after the shooting.  I am not sure what kind of investigating gets done when no one has been back to our home or contacted us regarding our findings.

The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support.  We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him.  My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him.  He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve.  Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up.  Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up.  He finally turned  himself in May 29th.  Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address?  I don't know either.  

The fact is our dog is dead and no one has been held accountable.  I believe Officer Long needs to be held accountable for his "over use of force" and the Sheriff's Office needs to admit their officer was in the wrong.

We have received tremendous support from perfect strangers who have called our home to express their shock, we've received cards and letters from people we don't know and flowers from people who just wanted to stop by to show they are supporting us in our public demonstration against Officer Long.

Thank you again to all of our supporters here in Southern Maryland.  We have also had world wide attention regarding MAX on a web site called www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bullet...w they agree with our stand.

Sharon Mattia


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> If there were dawn I am sure you would know where it is.  You are the most irrational emotional person I have ever seen on one of these forums.  You don't want witty debate, more like you want to impose your opinion and offer conjecture rather than fact.  Here are facts!  The officer was there legally!  The officer was bitten!  The family member of the Mattias brought the officer there by falsifying his address.  He is a deadbeat!  FACT!



You say fact -- the officer was bitten!-- and just how do you come to that conclusion? You were there?  Did you see the officer get bit?  Did you see the bite after the fact?  NO, so how do you deem that to be a fact?

Impose my opinion; no I would say I am just rebutting comments made by others, basically the same thing other people are doing.

The facts as I see them, whether the officer was there, the officer shot and killed Max, the officer was no where to be found when the son come home, and if you are there to serve a warrant to a son for child support -- you would confront the son that comes home, wouldn’t you?  and the major FACT that not even you can argue is the fact that the officer has killed at least three dogs and has been held unaccountable for at least two up until this point.    

Get off the fact the son did not pay child support, there is another thread on that subject, take your thoughts there, this thread is about a low life cop that is trigger happy and doesn’t deserve to work on the streets.


----------



## krazd_kat

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> MAX UPDATE!
> 
> The fact is our dog is dead and no one has been held accountable.  I believe Officer Long needs to be held accountable for his "over use of force" and the Sheriff's Office needs to admit their officer was in the wrong.
> 
> Sharon Mattia



Thanks for the update Sharon - Your quote is what this entire thing is about, Max is dead and no one has been held accountable.

Every pet owner has the right to be upset at how this has been handled.  Any one that has a pet on their property properly restrained or in a fenced yard even has the right to expect that when we return home our dogs are still alive and where they belong.  The sheriff's office needs to make sure this is completely investigated and Officer Long needs to be punished accordingly to show the public that as responsible pet owners we have nothing to fear from an officer showing up unannounced at our homes.


----------



## dawn

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> MAX UPDATE!
> 
> Thank you Dawn and all the other supporters we have had regarding justice for Max.  On Saturday, June 2nd,  we received a letter from the Charles County Sheriff's Office stating the case has been turned over to Internal Affairs for an investigation regarding the complaint we filed against Officer Long.  Sheriff Coffey made a personal visit to our home last Wednesday, May 30th and reviewed the "crime scene".  My husband showed him the 2 bullet holes in the concrete and the blood stains which are still there even after I washed it with bleach and the 7 gun casings which my husband found 3 days after the shooting.  I am not sure what kind of investigating gets done when no one has been back to our home or contacted us regarding our findings.
> 
> The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support.  We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him.  My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him.  He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve.  Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up.  Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up.  He finally turned  himself in May 29th.  Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address?  I don't know either.
> 
> The fact is our dog is dead and no one has been held accountable.  I believe Officer Long needs to be held accountable for his "over use of force" and the Sheriff's Office needs to admit their officer was in the wrong.
> 
> We have received tremendous support from perfect strangers who have called our home to express their shock, we've received cards and letters from people we don't know and flowers from people who just wanted to stop by to show they are supporting us in our public demonstration against Officer Long.
> 
> Thank you again to all of our supporters here in Southern Maryland.  We have also had world wide attention regarding MAX on a web site called www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bullet...d know that Max did not die without a reason.


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 06-04-2007 10:57 PM F * * K YOU ..just because you sleep around does not make you the Know It All you are spouting off to be ya tard!..SHoot em All I say..shoot all the dogs tired out to suffer at the end of a chain!!! 


This is just way uncalled for!   I will not even justify the first comment with an answer, and second off, because some dogs are tied to chains doesnt make it a bad thing, some dogs for instance Max, had a pretty good run with his leash, second he had shelter from the rain, and sun and third off, it shows that they love him enough to be assured that he does not get loose and hit by a car.

You appear to have some serious mental issues and I feel really sorry for the miserable person that you are.  You may want to inquire about getting some help.  God bless!


----------



## Max's Mom

I forgot to mention when Sheriff Coffey came to our home my husband asked him if pictures were taken of the so called "Bite" and the Sheriff said he didn't think so.  If Officer Long was taken to an ER shouldn't they have documented or taken a picture of the bite.  Again, things are not adding up with the BITE STORY.  We want to see documentation that he was even bitten.  Where can we get this from?  If we ever get a final report I would think it would mention the officer was taken to the ER and treated, but we have not gotten that report nor has an official statement been made by Charles County Sheriff's Office.


----------



## 88stringslouie

I think that you'll have to have a court order to subpoena the medical records.
They'll have them at the hospital.

Have you called Wayne Cooper?  Did you get an attorney?  I would file a lawsuit at the courthouse...(I know that there is a property law regarding domestic animals and property owners).  Have you contacted the Wash Post to do a follow-up article regarding Max?  Did you call the FBI?  The FBI in Hawaii found the local police responsible for killing a person's dog.  I'm not sure if there were damages rewarded.


----------



## lovinmaryland

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> MAX UPDATE!
> 
> Thank you Dawn and all the other supporters we have had regarding justice for Max.  On Saturday, June 2nd,  we received a letter from the Charles County Sheriff's Office stating the case has been turned over to Internal Affairs for an investigation regarding the complaint we filed against Officer Long.  Sheriff Coffey made a personal visit to our home last Wednesday, May 30th and reviewed the "crime scene".  My husband showed him the 2 bullet holes in the concrete and the blood stains which are still there even after I washed it with bleach and the 7 gun casings which my husband found 3 days after the shooting.  I am not sure what kind of investigating gets done when no one has been back to our home or contacted us regarding our findings.
> 
> The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support.  We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him.  My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him.  He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve.  Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up.  Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up.  He finally turned  himself in May 29th.  Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address?  I don't know either.
> 
> The fact is our dog is dead and no one has been held accountable.  I believe Officer Long needs to be held accountable for his "over use of force" and the Sheriff's Office needs to admit their officer was in the wrong.
> 
> We have received tremendous support from perfect strangers who have called our home to express their shock, we've received cards and letters from people we don't know and flowers from people who just wanted to stop by to show they are supporting us in our public demonstration against Officer Long.
> 
> Thank you again to all of our supporters here in Southern Maryland.  We have also had world wide attention regarding MAX on a web site called www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bullet...ily are in my thoughts and prayers.   :huggy:


----------



## tes218

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell it's not!!! That's the whole point. The Mattia's care more about that stupid dog than they do about their grandchild getting his child support. So what you are saying is, let the dog bite and maul you, and for God's sake, don't defend yourself?? I can see the headline now, "Officer Murdered by Dog". You'll make a fine lawyer...just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that they care more about the dog than their grandchild?  I've never heard anyone ever say they know or knew where their son is living?  Were they asked if they knew? Is a parent responsible for the actions of their grown children?  Are grown children required to stay in contact with their parents?  It could be the case they didn't support him not paying child support so he's not keeping in contact with them!  The shooting of their dog is a totally separate issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## PrchJrkr

tes218 said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think that they care more about the dog than their grandchild?  I've never heard anyone ever say they know or knew where their son is living?  Were they asked if they knew? Is a parent responsible for the actions of their grown children?  Are grown children required to stay in contact with their parents?  It could be the case they didn't support him not paying child support so he's not keeping in contact with them!  The shooting of their dog is a totally separate issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :shrug: So what's the problem? Dawn has been making stuff up as she goes. Can't anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> tes218 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :shrug: So what's the problem? Dawn has been making stuff up as she goes. Can't anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been making stuff us as I go???????   Please show me any post I have created, that is made up????
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> You say fact -- the officer was bitten!-- and just how do you come to that conclusion? You were there?  Did you see the officer get bit?  Did you see the bite after the fact?  NO, so how do you deem that to be a fact?
> 
> Impose my opinion; no I would say I am just rebutting comments made by others, basically the same thing other people are doing.
> 
> The facts as I see them, whether the officer was there, the officer shot and killed Max, the officer was no where to be found when the son come home, and if you are there to serve a warrant to a son for child support -- you would confront the son that comes home, wouldn’t you?  and the major FACT that not even you can argue is the fact that the officer has killed at least three dogs and has been held unaccountable for at least two up until this point.
> 
> Get off the fact the son did not pay child support, there is another thread on that subject, take your thoughts there, this thread is about a low life cop that is trigger happy and doesn’t deserve to work on the streets.


 Yes I did see the officer after he was bitten.  I spoke to the officer about what happened.  Have you?  No!  You are speaking to people with an agenda, who knew their son was wanted but gave no information to the police until after their dog was killed!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes I did see the officer after he was bitten.  I spoke to the officer about what happened.  Have you?  No!  You are speaking to people with an agenda, who knew their son was wanted but gave no information to the police until after their dog was killed!





Now first off, you spoke to the officer?????? you saw the dog bite, yeah right, Sir I am very short of calling you a liar........

And I guess they knew he had a warrant out for his arrest, so now what do the police do, send out courtesy postcards saying..... YOU ARE WANTED BY THE CCSO, TURN YOURSELF IN, OR WE WILL COME TO GET YOU??????   

As it turned out--he wasnt even supposed to be there anyway, now boy if our county boys dont communicate with one another, and they are supposed to be the ones to protect us, I feel safe.  

you do not know what contact they have with this son-you do not know anything to make any kind of speculation -- and the last time I checked they dont send you a notice telling you they are coming to serve you with a warrant, nor do they make that nice little phone call in advance, so get over it.


----------



## JesseJames

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> MAX UPDATE!
> 
> Thank you Dawn and all the other supporters we have had regarding justice for Max.  On Saturday, June 2nd,  we received a letter from the Charles County Sheriff's Office stating the case has been turned over to Internal Affairs for an investigation regarding the complaint we filed against Officer Long.  Sheriff Coffey made a personal visit to our home last Wednesday, May 30th and reviewed the "crime scene".  My husband showed him the 2 bullet holes in the concrete and the blood stains which are still there even after I washed it with bleach and the 7 gun casings which my husband found 3 days after the shooting.  I am not sure what kind of investigating gets done when no one has been back to our home or contacted us regarding our findings.
> 
> The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support.  We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him.  My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him.  He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve.  Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up.  Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up.  He finally turned  himself in May 29th.  Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address?  I don't know either.
> 
> The fact is our dog is dead and no one has been held accountable.  I believe Officer Long needs to be held accountable for his "over use of force" and the Sheriff's Office needs to admit their officer was in the wrong.
> 
> Sharon Mattia



The Sheriff's Department doesn't need to say that an officer is wrong to defend him/herself. In fact they won't take that position or all officers would resign.
The dog was loose, that is what the officer has been saying -- I am sure they were told that on that day, at least that is what the St. Mary's Today said the cop said. They don't believe it -- that doesn't make it untrue. I UNDERSTAND that they are upset, I UNDERSTAND that when they left Max he *WAS* tied up, but he got loose. They just REFUSE to believe it. You CANNOT ACCEPT that Max got loose. Why? Would that mean they might have to accept responsibility for not tying him up better? That does not make the officer wrong IN THE LEAST BIT, nor the Sheriff's Department. 
I feel great personal sorrow for your loss, but your refusal to accept Long's side of the story, doesn't make Long's side untrue. You collected shell casings ... it proves the officer kept firing until Max quit trying to attack him. Max wasn't going to give up until he was dead, and he didn't. I would hope our officers don't just stop shooting during a threat either. Max wasn't wrong at all, protecting his property... but the lines overlapped someone has to draw a line. Where all citizens who want freedoms and still want to have police draw the line is to say that "An officer on my property with legal purpose, has the right to defend himself while he is there."

You need to understand the laws about cops using force. Once they decide to shoot, they shoot until they are satisfied that you, or them or anyone else is no longer in danger. 
EVERYONE CHARGED WITH CARRYING A WEAPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS HAS THAT RIGHT AND *RESPONSIBILITY* TO SHOOT UNTIL THE THREAT IS OVER. If Long stopped shooting while I was being attacked I would sue him for failure to act. He better reload if need be. He better shoot until the dog stops attacking me, as long as it is safe for him to shoot. Where Max was concerned, it was safe for him to keep shooting until Max stopped attacking, so Long did. He shot with the weapon he was allowed (I hope) to carry, with permission from the Sheriff's Department. Who cares about the damaged concrete or grass or dirt?
Incidentally... I wouldn't wait until the dog bit me to start shooting if I were lucky enough to be armed during a dog attack. The dog would get within about 10 feet of me, growling and snarling... and I would attempt to shoot it. I would probably miss, as I am not that good of a shot... so guess what, I would shoot again. And again. Oh, and again. Until the dog decided to run away or... well the rest is history. I would consider myself lucky if I were to stop the attack before I ended up getting bit. So should the dog's owner because a lawsuit would be pending. 
Were Sharon's young grandchild (the one w/out child support or any other) in danger (may God protect them), and Max refused to stop attacking, I would hope that Sharon herself would, if armed, shoot at Max to get him to stop. Or if Long were just a visitor, (checking in on them -- to say hello -- after that first time he came to the house to investigate) and Max began attacking him, absolutely refusing to stop, I would hope Sharon would, if armed shoot him. I imagine it would break her heart, but I hope she would be responsible enough to do so. Who would she hold accountable then?


----------



## PrchJrkr

dawn said:
			
		

> PrchJrkr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tes218 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been making stuff us as I go???????   Please show me any post I have created, that is made up????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to call Office Long a liar, saying he wasn't bitten, yet you were not there and Max ain't talkin'. Therefore, your credibilty is 0. Go eat some grass and hug a freaking tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

JesseJames said:
			
		

> The Sheriff's Department doesn't need to say that an officer is wrong to defend him/herself. In fact they won't take that position or all officers would resign.
> The dog was loose, that is what the officer has been saying -- I am sure they were told that on that day, at least that is what the St. Mary's Today said the cop said. They don't believe it -- that doesn't make it untrue. I UNDERSTAND that they are upset, I UNDERSTAND that when they left Max he *WAS* tied up, but he got loose. They just REFUSE to believe it. You CANNOT ACCEPT that Max got loose. Why? Would that mean they might have to accept responsibility for not tying him up better? That does not make the officer wrong IN THE LEAST BIT, nor the Sheriff's Department.
> I feel great personal sorrow for your loss, but your refusal to accept Long's side of the story, doesn't make Long's side untrue. You collected shell casings ... it proves the officer kept firing until Max quit trying to attack him. Max wasn't going to give up until he was dead, and he didn't. I would hope our officers don't just stop shooting during a threat either. Max wasn't wrong at all, protecting his property... but the lines overlapped someone has to draw a line. Where all citizens who want freedoms and still want to have police draw the line is to say that "An officer on my property with legal purpose, has the right to defend himself while he is there."
> 
> You need to understand the laws about cops using force. Once they decide to shoot, they shoot until they are satisfied that you, or them or anyone else is no longer in danger.
> EVERYONE CHARGED WITH CARRYING A WEAPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS HAS THAT RIGHT AND *RESPONSIBILITY* TO SHOOT UNTIL THE THREAT IS OVER. If Long stopped shooting while I was being attacked I would sue him for failure to act. He better reload if need be. He better shoot until the dog stops attacking me, as long as it is safe for him to shoot. Where Max was concerned, it was safe for him to keep shooting until Max stopped attacking, so Long did. He shot with the weapon he was allowed (I hope) to carry, with permission from the Sheriff's Department. Who cares about the damaged concrete or grass or dirt?
> Incidentally... I wouldn't wait until the dog bit me to start shooting if I were lucky enough to be armed during a dog attack. The dog would get within about 10 feet of me, growling and snarling... and I would attempt to shoot it. I would probably miss, as I am not that good of a shot... so guess what, I would shoot again. And again. Oh, and again. Until the dog decided to run away or... well the rest is history. I would consider myself lucky if I were to stop the attack before I ended up getting bit. So should the dog's owner because a lawsuit would be pending.
> Were Sharon's young grandchild (the one w/out child support or any other) in danger (may God protect them), and Max refused to stop attacking, I would hope that Sharon herself would, if armed, shoot at Max to get him to stop. Or if Long were just a visitor, (checking in on them -- to say hello -- after that first time he came to the house to investigate) and Max began attacking him, absolutely refusing to stop, I would hope Sharon would, if armed shoot him. I imagine it would break her heart, but I hope she would be responsible enough to do so. Who would she hold accountable then?



Did you look at the same pics as I did? Looks tho as if Max got loose after his collar was shot off, that's just a guess tho.


----------



## JesseJames

Uhm... in the quite likely chance that Long's third shooting, as with the other two, is found to be justified -- has anyone thought about taking up some kind of donation or so... to maybe get another dog for the Mattia family? I know it won't replace Max... but is anyone working that angle?


----------



## missperky

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Uhm... in the quite likely chance that Long's third shooting, as with the other two, is found to be justified -- has anyone thought about taking up some kind of donation or so... to maybe get another dog for the Mattia family? I know it won't replace Max... but is anyone working that angle?



How do you know they want another dog to replace Max?


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> The Sheriff's Department doesn't need to say that an officer is wrong to defend him/herself. In fact they won't take that position or all officers would resign.
> The dog was loose, that is what the officer has been saying -- I am sure they were told that on that day, at least that is what the St. Mary's Today said the cop said. They don't believe it -- that doesn't make it untrue. I UNDERSTAND that they are upset, I UNDERSTAND that when they left Max he *WAS* tied up, but he got loose. They just REFUSE to believe it. You CANNOT ACCEPT that Max got loose. Why? Would that mean they might have to accept responsibility for not tying him up better? That does not make the officer wrong IN THE LEAST BIT, nor the Sheriff's Department.
> I feel great personal sorrow for your loss, but your refusal to accept Long's side of the story, doesn't make Long's side untrue. You collected shell casings ... it proves the officer kept firing until Max quit trying to attack him. Max wasn't going to give up until he was dead, and he didn't. I would hope our officers don't just stop shooting during a threat either. Max wasn't wrong at all, protecting his property... but the lines overlapped someone has to draw a line. Where all citizens who want freedoms and still want to have police draw the line is to say that "An officer on my property with legal purpose, has the right to defend himself while he is there."
> 
> You need to understand the laws about cops using force. Once they decide to shoot, they shoot until they are satisfied that you, or them or anyone else is no longer in danger.
> EVERYONE CHARGED WITH CARRYING A WEAPON TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OR OTHERS HAS THAT RIGHT AND *RESPONSIBILITY* TO SHOOT UNTIL THE THREAT IS OVER. If Long stopped shooting while I was being attacked I would sue him for failure to act. He better reload if need be. He better shoot until the dog stops attacking me, as long as it is safe for him to shoot. Where Max was concerned, it was safe for him to keep shooting until Max stopped attacking, so Long did. He shot with the weapon he was allowed (I hope) to carry, with permission from the Sheriff's Department. Who cares about the damaged concrete or grass or dirt?
> Incidentally... I wouldn't wait until the dog bit me to start shooting if I were lucky enough to be armed during a dog attack. The dog would get within about 10 feet of me, growling and snarling... and I would attempt to shoot it. I would probably miss, as I am not that good of a shot... so guess what, I would shoot again. And again. Oh, and again. Until the dog decided to run away or... well the rest is history. I would consider myself lucky if I were to stop the attack before I ended up getting bit. So should the dog's owner because a lawsuit would be pending.
> Were Sharon's young grandchild (the one w/out child support or any other) in danger (may God protect them), and Max refused to stop attacking, I would hope that Sharon herself would, if armed, shoot at Max to get him to stop. Or if Long were just a visitor, (checking in on them -- to say hello -- after that first time he came to the house to investigate) and Max began attacking him, absolutely refusing to stop, I would hope Sharon would, if armed shoot him. I imagine it would break her heart, but I hope she would be responsible enough to do so. Who would she hold accountable then?




Mr. James you are despicable, this officer has shot and killed three dogs on three separate occasions that we are aware of.  Officer Long obviously has a fear or hatred of dogs and should not be in uniform.  Cops come across dogs daily and they should not be afraid of dogs. 

The sheriffs Department does need to acknowledge when an officer is wrong and Officer Long was/is WRONG!  

Why is it that you take Officer Longs word as gold???   In a lot of instances actions speak louder than words, and Mr. James, Officer Long’s actions speak loud and clear – three dogs’ dead, one witness to each.  

You say that you believe max was tied up when they left, but that he got loose and that the Mattias are trying to avoid accepting responsibility for not tying him up better.  Mr. James, a chain is a chain, you do not tie a bow around a dog’s neck and say ok, and you are tied up now.   There is a hook attached to a chain that is attached to the porch, the chain attached to the porch and the hook that was attached to Max’s neck was in tack.  Max did not break free of the hook, max did not break the chain from the porch, max was simply chained up where he should have been and where he ahs been in the past.   There is nothing that needs be done on the Mattia’s part for accepting any wrong responsibility; they actually were responsible pet owners by making sure their dog was securely tied up.  

You are correct Max is not wrong; officer long is wrong and did not foresee that the Mattias would put up a fight.   He thought his word (LIE) would be gold as it has been in the past.  

You say max wasn’t going to give up until he was dead, well sir, you please tell me what fight did max give, and officer saying he was bit, bfd, so what proof is in the pudding and I don’t believe it until I see it and even after this length of time, any photo can be doctored with Photoshop.  

Officer Long should have showed his face when the son came home.  HE WAS LOOKING FOR A SON FOR GODS SAKE, how did he know this was not the son???????  He did not know, so he should have shown his face as soon as the truck came up the driveway, but no-- where was Officer Long????????? Bleeding to death, nope (unfortunately), where was he Mr. James, please enlighten us, where was he?    Son pulls up, finds dog, officer there to serve warrant to take son to jail, perfect opportunity, wouldn’t you say to arrest a son (doesn’t matter it was wrong son, point is officer long had no clue).

The only thing I need to understand about cops using force is that this officer used excessive force.  You say that once they decide to shoot, they shoot until they are satisfied that there is longer a danger present????????   

You say that if you were being attacked, that the officer better keep shooting or you would sue for failure to act???  The officer was not there for a dog attack; the officer was there to serve a stupid warrant that he could have acted upon when the son came home (yes I know wrong son, but still).  

You would shoot to kill at dog if they were 10 feet away from and growling you because you would be afraid you would get attacked, well dogs have a great sense of character Mr. James, and that says it all.    You appear to have a great mentality Mr. James, you must be proud to be an American, I would almost wonder if you were from a third world country with the nonsense you speak.  

If a police officer ever shows up at my house and I am not expecting him, call first ok, because if you show up in an unmarked car, I will not answer my door and don’t shoot my dog, because I will shoot my gun excessively until I feel the threat is over (DEAD).


----------



## dawn

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrchJrkr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to call Office Long a liar, saying he wasn't bitten, yet you were not there and Max ain't talkin'. Therefore, your credibilty is 0. Go eat some grass and hug a freaking tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a Liar, WHERE WAS HE WHEN THE SON SHOWED UP HOME??????? I have said it a million times,
> 
> here is an officer -- looking to serve warrant, son comes home, why not appraoch son, oh, I guess doggy bite hurts policeman so bad, he is laying down on the ground in pain, wait, no he cant be laying down on the ground, otherwise the son would have seen him.  So where was he????
> 
> and why do you take the officer word??    his past, well he has a past and frankly has past is coming to light.
> 
> yes you are correct, i wasnt there, and no max isnt talking, why becasue a freak of a cop that shouldnt be a cop killed max, and he just thought it would swept under the carpet.      But thank you for reading my posts, it makes me realize that what I am saying is not going unnoticed.  You dont have to agree with what I write, but I know that you are at least reading it.
> 
> Thank you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JesseJames

missperky said:
			
		

> Did you look at the same pics as I did? Looks tho as if Max got loose after his collar was shot off, that's just a guess tho.



Well, since we were not together at the time you saw the pics, and since you didn't point out exactly which pics you saw -- I cannot emphatically state whether I saw the same pics you saw. However...

I saw some good pics, including one in which a what APPEARS to be two pieces of a choker collar laying on the ground near a yellow tie out, on a sidewalk and close to the door of some residence. PRE-suming (betther than AS-suming) these are photos of the scene after Max was shot... We can EMPHATICALLY UNDER OATH SAY A FEW THINGS:
1.) The choker is broken in two.
2.) The choker is in the vicinity of the lead.
3.) The choker appears to be made of silver colored metal.
4.) The lead is yellow colored.
5.) The choker is NOT, as I recall, clipped to the lead -- which says something, since choker collars, to work with a lead must have at least one end fastened to the lead.

That is all we could say under oath. That is all. 

We could attempt to draw our own conclusions -- though they are purely CONJECTURE, and will inevitably display our own bias and prejudice.(Let us acknowldege that fact).
Some of those bias/prejudices are:
1.) animosity/bias toward police
2.) animosity/bias towards dogs especially beloved pets
3.) animosity/bias for whatever personal reasons towards Long
4.) trust/ or lack of - for local government/ law enforcement

Looking at those photos, and knowing that this is the scene where an officer shot a dog (that HE alleges was loose and attacking him -- while the OWNERS allege was tied and would never attack). :shrug: 
I see a collar that could have been broken, while the loose (because the choker isn't clipped to the lead at all) dog was attacking the officer in the area of his home and lead. And though it is possible Long hit the choker once in the clip causing it to fall off then once in the middle afterwards, or vice versa, I doubt Long hit the choker two times... (we see he doesn't shoot well based on the number of rounds he fired).  
Since the choker collar is broken, it is probable the choker was struck by a single bullet while the loose dog, in the area of his lead was being shot at. Of course if the collar was laying on the ground when a bullet struck it, I see no chip in the cement in the immediate area of the choker. So... If the dog was wearing it the choker fell off and there it lays. There is blood in other areas in other photos, indicating the dog was moving and bleeding. There is a significant amount of blood on one area of the cement, indicating the dog stayed in that position for awhile while bleeding. Standing or laying, barking and attacking or docile, I cannot say.


----------



## JesseJames

*The son didn't see Long, Long didn't see the son.*



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> The sheriffs Department does need to acknowledge when an officer is wrong and Officer Long was/is WRONG!



I agree wholeheartedly... per your words... "...when an officer is wrong" the Sheriff's Department should acknowledge that. But an officer is not wrong purely because you Dawn say so. Take a course in "Use of Force" and you will see.
At what point, in your mind, should an officer, in fear of "great bodily harm" or "death" stop shooting before the threat ends. Is he/she only allowed to shoot one time according to you then stop... even though the threat is still present and coming at him? You think I am somehow out of my mind because I plainly state that I would keep firing until the threat is over?

Watch this video... tell me the cop wouldn't be allowed to shoot while the dog was 10 feet away. This is how dogs attack...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgZZiXPajAc

I would shoot to protect you from that attack, even if I was 100 feet away, but you were within 10 feet. I am stating that if Max attacked as such, you, me, or anyone would be allowed to shoot, and keep shooting if that dog kept attacking.
You do not know Long, and you were not on the scene... please do not call someone you do not know a liar. I am not even calling the Mattias liars because I believe they left Max tied up... but I believe before they got home Max got loose.
Long was likely at his vehicle, sitting and calling for units, when the other son arrived home. Depending upon the layout of the driveway, residence and Max's tie out and location... the two may not have seen each other at all. How come the son didn't confront Long? Because he didn't see Long. If the son didn't see Long it is very likely that Long couldn't see the son. Obviously by this point Long is now dealing with a discharge of his weapon -- the warrant has taken a lower priority. You know this -- we are still talking about the shooting of Max, yet the warrant was served on 05/29/07. The warrant has gone on the back burner, by all of us, and Max's shooting took top tray. Long had other things to worry about. His injuries, getting back up there, informing a supervisor, getting someone out to begin the investigation etc.
And apparently he was treated by the ambulance... doesn't matter for how small a bite, luckily he protected himself before Max really got ahold of him, just as he LEGALLY is allowed.


----------



## JesseJames

missperky said:
			
		

> How do you know they want another dog to replace Max?



I do believe it was mentioned by Sharon on another website... the "pedigree" one. Everyone is quick to chime in, and most are saddened that Officer Long had to shoot Max. I daresay that even the cop didn't _*WANT*_ to shoot Max, and would prefer that they had something/ or someone to help ease their loss. I doubt Long is just some heartless SOGun serial dog killer.


----------



## JesseJames

Dawn, I thought further and felt I should clarify for you. I would shoot an approaching loose, actively attacking dog that was 10 feet away, barking and snarling and apparently intent on attacking me or anyone else. 

I would not shoot a dog, on a tie out 10 feet from me, unable to reach me which was growling and snarling. If it was on a lead or tie out... the dog is safe. If the dog were to break loose and actively begin to attack anyone that is when I would shoot. If that person was you, and I were to miss with my first shot, and it was safe to shoot again (I would not risking shooting you or anyone else -- and not caring if I hit a cement sidewalk), and you were still being attacked... I would shoot again, and even if I hit the dog, but the dog didn't stop, I maintain that I would still shoot. If you were screaming bloody murder with the dog nipping at your heels... according to your one post, am I not allowed to help you further by attempting to shoot the dog again?


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> I agree wholeheartedly... per your words... "...when an officer is wrong" the Sheriff's Department should acknowledge that. But an officer is not wrong purely because you Dawn say so. Take a course in "Use of Force" and you will see.
> At what point, in your mind, should an officer, in fear of "great bodily harm" or "death" stop shooting before the threat ends. Is he/she only allowed to shoot one time according to you then stop... even though the threat is still present and coming at him? You think I am somehow out of my mind because I plainly state that I would keep firing until the threat is over?
> 
> Watch this video... tell me the cop wouldn't be allowed to shoot while the dog was 10 feet away. This is how dogs attack...
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=cgZZiXPajAc
> 
> I would shoot to protect you from that attack, even if I was 100 feet away, but you were within 10 feet. I am stating that if Max attacked as such, you, me, or anyone would be allowed to shoot, and keep shooting if that dog kept attacking.
> You do not know Long, and you were not on the scene... please do not call someone you do not know a liar. I am not even calling the Mattias liars because I believe they left Max tied up... but I believe before they got home Max got loose.
> Long was likely at his vehicle, sitting and calling for units, when the other son arrived home. Depending upon the layout of the driveway, residence and Max's tie out and location... the two may not have seen each other at all. How come the son didn't confront Long? Because he didn't see Long. If the son didn't see Long it is very likely that Long couldn't see the son. Obviously by this point Long is now dealing with a discharge of his weapon -- the warrant has taken a lower priority. You know this -- we are still talking about the shooting of Max, yet the warrant was served on 05/29/07. The warrant has gone on the back burner, by all of us, and Max's shooting took top tray. Long had other things to worry about. His injuries, getting back up there, informing a supervisor, getting someone out to begin the investigation etc.
> And apparently he was treated by the ambulance... doesn't matter for how small a bite, luckily he protected himself before Max really got ahold of him, just as he LEGALLY is allowed.




There is a drive way that goes in front of the house that you follow until you come to the back of the house (which is where the room is for parking), then there is a seperate driveway that leads up through to the back of the house.   either driveyway you come on, you have to go to end up at the back of the house to park.  it is a one lane driveway that is used by several houses, so you cant just stop anywhere, you have to drive to the designated house and as you pull to the back of the house the dog was right there.  so officer long had to see him come home, if not he had to hear him, it is a gravel driveway.

And Mr. James, some police beleive it or not do abuse their power as police officers, they have some belief that they can do no wrong and I have perceived officer long to be one of those police officers, I am sorry, but I can not be convinced any different.


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Dawn, I thought further and felt I should clarify for you. I would shoot an approaching loose, actively attacking dog that was 10 feet away, barking and snarling and apparently intent on attacking me or anyone else.
> 
> If you were screaming bloody murder with the dog nipping at your heels... according to your one post, am I not allowed to help you further by attempting to shoot the dog again?




I dont recall saying anything like that?


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> PrchJrkr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a Liar, WHERE WAS HE WHEN THE SON SHOWED UP HOME??????? I have said it a million times,
> 
> here is an officer -- looking to serve warrant, son comes home, why not appraoch son, oh, I guess doggy bite hurts policeman so bad, he is laying down on the ground in pain, wait, no he cant be laying down on the ground, otherwise the son would have seen him.  So where was he????
> 
> and why do you take the officer word??    his past, well he has a past and frankly has past is coming to light.
> 
> yes you are correct, i wasnt there, and no max isnt talking, why becasue a freak of a cop that shouldnt be a cop killed max, and he just thought it would swept under the carpet.      But thank you for reading my posts, it makes me realize that what I am saying is not going unnoticed.  You dont have to agree with what I write, but I know that you are at least reading it.
> 
> Thank you again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You KNOW Long is lying...how did you come to this conclusion? Were you there? Can you read his mind? Did you speak with Max in the afterlife? How can you sit there on your high horse and say Long is lying? How can anyone. I have said all along, and I'll stick to my guns. This officer deserves the benefit of the doubt. It's funny how people constantly complain about the police and the way they do their jobs. People need to realize that police are human, not robots. They make split second decisions every day and are expected to be right 100% of the time. In a perfect world I guess this would happen. But then again, in a perfect world that dead beat would have paid his child support and Long would have never had to come look for him. I know Dawn you and I will never agree, however, I believe in the nobility of the lawman and have great respect for them. They put their lives on the line every day for the citizens (Lord knows it's not for the pay) and ask so little in return. I know not all police are saints, but as far as I know, Long has never been charged with shooting any of these animals. And, if you are a paralegal like you say, you should know past incidents can not be brought up at trial....just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dork

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrchJrkr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You KNOW Long is lying...how did you come to this conclusion? Were you there? Can you read his mind? Did you speak with Max in the afterlife? How can you sit there on your high horse and say Long is lying? How can anyone. I have said all along, and I'll stick to my guns. This officer deserves the benefit of the doubt. It's funny how people constantly complain about the police and the way they do their jobs. People need to realize that police are human, not robots. They make split second decisions every day and are expected to be right 100% of the time. In a perfect world I guess this would happen. But then again, in a perfect world that dead beat would have paid his child support and Long would have never had to come look for him. I know Dawn you and I will never agree, however, I believe in the nobility of the lawman and have great respect for them. They put their lives on the line every day for the citizens (Lord knows it's not for the pay) and ask so little in return. I know not all police are saints, but as far as I know, Long has never been charged with shooting any of these animals. And, if you are a paralegal like you say, you should know past incidents can not be brought up at trial....just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else think we've run this thread deep into the ground?  Can't we talk about something more interesting like collecting socks?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Now first off, you spoke to the officer?????? you saw the dog bite, yeah right, Sir I am very short of calling you a liar........
> 
> And I guess they knew he had a warrant out for his arrest, so now what do the police do, send out courtesy postcards saying..... YOU ARE WANTED BY THE CCSO, TURN YOURSELF IN, OR WE WILL COME TO GET YOU??????
> 
> As it turned out--he wasnt even supposed to be there anyway, now boy if our county boys dont communicate with one another, and they are supposed to be the ones to protect us, I feel safe.
> 
> you do not know what contact they have with this son-you do not know anything to make any kind of speculation -- and the last time I checked they dont send you a notice telling you they are coming to serve you with a warrant, nor do they make that nice little phone call in advance, so get over it.


 No, but there were several court notices sent to the Mattias House regaurding the support.  The Mattias new where their son was living but failed to notify the court.  You can call me anything you like Miss, I am telling the truth from an unbiased perspective.  You are an emotional wreck about all this and will never see logic.


----------



## itsbob

Can someone shoot this thread seven times??


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> yes you are correct, i wasnt there, and no max isnt talking, why becasue a freak of a cop that shouldnt be a cop killed max, and he just thought it would swept under the carpet.
> Thank you again.


So let me get this straight..

If the cop didn't shoot Max he WOULD be talking??

How long have you had the ability to talk to the animals?


----------



## itsbob

OOps sorry, forgot, I wanted this thread DEAD!!


----------



## tom88

itsbob said:
			
		

> Can someone shoot this thread seven times??


----------



## greyhound

itsbob said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight..
> 
> If the cop didn't shoot Max he WOULD be talking??
> 
> How long have you had the ability to talk to the animals?



Maybe he knew the Bushes baked Beans recipe.....


----------



## JesseJames

*Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged*



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> I dont recall saying anything like that?


You didn't say that. What you seemed to be saying was that I was wrong for being willing to shoot a dog 10 feet away that was snarling etc. I would... if he were unrestrained and actively attacking.
I wanted to clarify... I didn't want you to think I would just blast a dog 10 feet away. And I don't think Long would either. 

If you know Officer Long and his personality and based on that judge him to be a LIAR, and someone who enjoys killing dogs, and most importantly in this case just wanted to shoot Max... and based on all of that think he is the horrible person you accuse him of being, then I respect that.

HOWEVER... if you do not know him, his personality, his views on abusing his police powers etc. you honestly and sincerely cannot judge him. He killed Max. CAN YOU EMPHATICALLY, WILLING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH WITH SOMETHING AN INVESTIGATING DETECTIVE AND ATTORNEY WOULD FIND VALUEABLE TO THE CASE, SAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FOR LONG TO ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN DEFENDING HIMSELF?  The answer is NO, and it would be folly to say otherwise, as you were not there. No disrespect intended... but you were not there.

Do you EMPHATICALLY know where long parked his vehicle? If you do not, then I would be careful about guessing. Ask the son who arrived why he didn't see Officer Long? He will probably tell you -- I didn't see Long anywhere. The son can tell you, and since he didn't see Long, he doesn't know (at least when he first got there) where Long was parked. I doubt seriously they just "eyeballed" one another. Nodding "Howdy" back and forth, without a word. We know Long didn't leave the scene and go somewhere else.

Yes, there are cops who abuse their power. They are a discredit to their honorable and heroic profession. But when an officer steps up, and is endangered and then defends him/her self... he shouldn't be judged negatively for doing so. How many mommies cry because their criminal son tried killing a cop and got blasted for it? Swearing the little baby that came out of their womb wouldn't hurt a flea? I have heard of mothers watching video of their kid shoplifting and still deny their baby did it. 

Dawn don't fall into that category. If you are willing to come forward with some facts that PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (that is what it takes to be convicted in America) that Long is one rotten cop -- bring it on.

I am willing to agree that if things did go down the way you believe, you are right... Long should be punished. But there is nothing to prove they did go down that way. There are some things to demonstrate otherwise. Long was treated by the ambulance crew... though he didn't have to wait to be bitten. He is allowed to shoot BEFORE his body is harmed. He gave Max a chance apparently, since Max got a bite in. The choker collar is in 2 pieces and neither piece was attached to the lead (as I recall). Why? It is safe to trust the officer and say that the choker was not attached when the attack began... Dogs attack, and Max honestly might have hated Long and tried to attack him (after all you don't even know him and are attacking pretty viciously). Dogs get loose, and you have NO proof, Proof, PROOF that Max didn't. You won't get a conviction for Long without that... after all we live in America  and our rule here is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Whether he is innocent or not... you gotta' PROVE he maliciously attacked Max.


----------



## tom88

*Is everybody who disagrees with you a liar?*




			
				dawn said:
			
		

> Now first off, you spoke to the officer?????? you saw the dog bite, yeah right, Sir I am very short of calling you a liar........





			
				dawn said:
			
		

> You like to throw that out that people may be lying.  Have you checked to find out why he shot the other two dogs?  I have.  Have you checked to find out if there were notices sent to the Mattias' home in the name of the deadbeat dad from the courts?  I have.  Maybe you should do some homework instead of complaining here all the time dawn!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now first off, you spoke to the officer?????? you saw the dog bite, yeah right, Sir I am very short of calling you a liar........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to throw that out that people may be lying.  Have you checked to find out why he shot the other two dogs?  I have.  Have you checked to find out if there were notices sent to the Mattias' home in the name of the deadbeat dad from the courts?  I have.  Maybe you should do some homework instead of complaining here all the time dawn!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep sure do, Tom, call them as I feel free to do so!  Actually I have semi-checked to see why he killed the other dogs.  Good for you that you have!  throw the man a cookie!  Nope, I sure didnt check to see if there were notices sent to the Mattia's home from the courts, based on my prior knowledge of child support and warrants, the only thing that comes from the courts to persons home is that time and date they are to show up in court for the child support hearing and either you go or you dont, if you go then great, if you dont, guess what a warrant is issued and that is all, no notice.  Never can I remember my ex getting anything in the mail saying the have a warrant out for his arrest, maybe times have changed, but somehow, since the cops still come to my house looking for him, i doubt it, but if you have different information and have the time to check with the courts, more power to you buddy.
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

itsbob said:
			
		

> OOps sorry, forgot, I wanted this thread DEAD!!


----------



## missperky

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Well, since we were not together at the time you saw the pics, and since you didn't point out exactly which pics you saw -- I cannot emphatically state whether I saw the same pics you saw. However...
> 
> I saw some good pics, including one in which a what APPEARS to be two pieces of a choker collar laying on the ground near a yellow tie out, on a sidewalk and close to the door of some residence. PRE-suming (betther than AS-suming) these are photos of the scene after Max was shot... We can EMPHATICALLY UNDER OATH SAY A FEW THINGS:
> 1.) The choker is broken in two.
> 2.) The choker is in the vicinity of the lead.
> 3.) The choker appears to be made of silver colored metal.
> 4.) The lead is yellow colored.
> 5.) The choker is NOT, as I recall, clipped to the lead -- which says something, since choker collars, to work with a lead must have at least one end fastened to the lead.
> 
> That is all we could say under oath. That is all.
> 
> We could attempt to draw our own conclusions -- though they are purely CONJECTURE, and will inevitably display our own bias and prejudice.(Let us acknowldege that fact).
> Some of those bias/prejudices are:
> 1.) animosity/bias toward police
> 2.) animosity/bias towards dogs especially beloved pets
> 3.) animosity/bias for whatever personal reasons towards Long
> 4.) trust/ or lack of - for local government/ law enforcement
> 
> Looking at those photos, and knowing that this is the scene where an officer shot a dog (that HE alleges was loose and attacking him -- while the OWNERS allege was tied and would never attack). :shrug:
> I see a collar that could have been broken, while the loose (because the choker isn't clipped to the lead at all) dog was attacking the officer in the area of his home and lead. And though it is possible Long hit the choker once in the clip causing it to fall off then once in the middle afterwards, or vice versa, I doubt Long hit the choker two times... (we see he doesn't shoot well based on the number of rounds he fired).
> Since the choker collar is broken, it is probable the choker was struck by a single bullet while the loose dog, in the area of his lead was being shot at. Of course if the collar was laying on the ground when a bullet struck it, I see no chip in the cement in the immediate area of the choker. So... If the dog was wearing it the choker fell off and there it lays. There is blood in other areas in other photos, indicating the dog was moving and bleeding. There is a significant amount of blood on one area of the cement, indicating the dog stayed in that position for awhile while bleeding. Standing or laying, barking and attacking or docile, I cannot say.



The link isn't working.


----------



## Lexib_

If there is a warrant for your arrest.  You will not get a notice about it.


----------



## tom88

Lexib_ said:
			
		

> If there is a warrant for your arrest.  You will not get a notice about it.


 I'm not talking about the warrant.  Prior to a warrant being issued, there are numerous hearings.  The summonses for the hearings are mailed to the residence.  The parents did know there were court cases going on and if they are getting hearing notices and their son is using a bad address, then they should know the consequence will be a warrant.  Now they knew their son's address, because they provided it to the police AFTER their dog was shot.  Perhaps this should have been done befor the tragedy and all this could have been avoided.


----------



## pingrr

tom88 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the warrant.  Prior to a warrant being issued, there are numerous hearings.  The summonses for the hearings are mailed to the residence.  The parents did know there were court cases going on and if they are getting hearing notices and their son is using a bad address, then they should know the consequence will be a warrant.  Now they knew their son's address, because they provided it to the police AFTER their dog was shot.  Perhaps this should have been done befor the tragedy and all this could have been avoided.




Just because they get their sons mail at the house doesn't mean they open it all up and go through it.  The son could have stoped by once and a while to get his mail.


----------



## tom88

pingrr said:
			
		

> Just because they get their sons mail at the house doesn't mean they open it all up and go through it.  The son could have stoped by once and a while to get his mail.


 The point is that they would have had to know the son was using their address.  Things are clearly marked from the courts so they would have had to know there were issues.  The father told the police that day where the son lived, why not make the son change his address with the courts prior?


----------



## pingrr

tom88 said:
			
		

> The point is that they would have had to know the son was using their address.  Things are clearly marked from the courts so they would have had to know there were issues.  The father told the police that day where the son lived, why not make the son change his address with the courts prior?




I don't know what the answer is there.   If the son refuses to go get an adress change because he moves around a couple times a year.  Maybe the son is just to cheap or lazy to go to the MVA to get it changed and pay for a new licence.

I think all court documents are sent to your address that is listed with the MVA.  I wouldn't think the MVA wouldn't let you go change someone elses address for them.


----------



## Lexib_

This was posted by Max's Mom

"The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support. We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him. My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him. He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve. Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up. Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up. He finally turned himself in May 29th. Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address? I don't know either. "

My point is this.... They had the info..... and they STILL did not attempt to serve the warrant after the fact..... Must not have been that important...


----------



## tom88

pingrr said:
			
		

> I don't know what the answer is there.   If the son refuses to go get an adress change because he moves around a couple times a year.  Maybe the son is just to cheap or lazy to go to the MVA to get it changed and pay for a new licence.
> 
> I think all court documents are sent to your address that is listed with the MVA.  I wouldn't think the MVA wouldn't let you go change someone elses address for them.


 Your wrong about this.  The court documents someone gets from the "Child support division" of the court is provided by the subject who has been taken to court.  The MVA has nothing to do with it.  All the Mattias had to do was contact their son, whom by the way the knew where he was located, and told him to change his address with the court.  Then, if they recieved another letter, they would just have to contact the court and advise them the subject no longer lives there.


----------



## jetmonkey

Lexib_ said:
			
		

> This was posted by Max's Mom
> 
> "The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support. We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him. My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him. He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve. Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up. Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up. He finally turned himself in May 29th. Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address? I don't know either. "
> 
> My point is this.... They had the info..... and they STILL did not attempt to serve the warrant after the fact..... Must not have been that important...


Clearly he just wanted to kill another dog.


----------



## tom88

Lexib_ said:
			
		

> This was posted by Max's Mom
> 
> "The other hot issue seems to be the fact the officer was here looking for my step-son, who does not live with us, for child support. We do not approve nor do we condone his actions of being a dead beat father, which in fact is what I call him. My husband, his father, told the officers on the scene that day where they could find him. He lives in Calvert County and Calvert County Police faxed the warrant for Charles County to serve. Even after he told them where he lived in Calvert County they did not go pick him up. Another family member called Calvert County a week later with his whereabouts and they still did not pick him up. He finally turned himself in May 29th. Now if they were so bent on getting him, why did they not go after him after they had correct information of his address? I don't know either. "
> 
> My point is this.... They had the info..... and they STILL did not attempt to serve the warrant after the fact..... Must not have been that important...


 They did attempt to locate him at the address provided by the father, but nobody answered the door.  They again tried the next day but could not locate him.  This information was retrieved from the Calvert County Sheriff's Office CAD system.


----------



## Booboo3604

tom88 said:
			
		

> They did attempt to locate him at the address provided by the father, but nobody answered the door.  They again tried the next day but could not locate him.  This information was retrieved from the Calvert County Sheriff's Office CAD system.




Does it mention whether the Calvert County SO just went to the front door and when it was not answered they left and returned the next day?  Or did they go to every single door on the house and peek in windows?  Just wondering why the charles county officer couldn't do the same and just came back the next day when no one answered the door.


----------



## cattitude

*Well, whaddaya know....*

Hmmmm...


----------



## dems4me

cattitude said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...




This is just terrible


----------



## cattitude

dems4me said:
			
		

> This is just terrible



Probably a different situation..


----------



## dems4me

cattitude said:
			
		

> Probably a different situation..



But still, the dog is protecting his territory and family... he's not the one that did the crime, the criminal did.


----------



## Inkpen

cattitude said:
			
		

> Hmmmm...


\
The slant from Channel 7:



> Three people are in custody after Prince George's County Police served a warrant in Upper Marlboro.
> 
> As authorites approached a home in the 9700 block of Green Apple Lane, a man emerged at the front door pointing a weapon at them.
> 
> Police opened fire at the man, but missed. A second suspect appeared in the front door with a dog, ordering the animal to attack officers. Police fired, missing the man, but striking the dog.
> 
> Narcotics were found in the home.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> JesseJames said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow... A very long thread. Obviously this has pricked a nerve.
> 
> I have had some experiences with dogs that could shed some light as to what may have happened.
> 
> Ya, di, ya, di, ya.......
> 
> After looking at the pics in the newspaper online, this sounds like a very long line of BS.
> The dog was tied, Long shot down at the dog and into the concrete.  I'd be anxious to know if there was gunpowder on Max.  How about gunpowder on the tether?  I would think that a 1st year forensic student could bury this cop.
> Did ANYONE examine the tether for gunpowder?  If Mr. Jesse James' tale were even close to accurate, Coffey and Long and all their commrades would have been in the newspapers.  We aren't that dumb.
> I bet there was some forensic work done at the scene and either the family was paid off to keep quiet, or the CCSO is hiring a "big gun" attorney to get ready for the fight of their life.
> 
> As a taxpayer who pays the salary of Long and others, I would find it repugnant that a penny of my money would go to the Mattias from the department.  Personally, I would rather contribute to a fund, if needed, for the attorney of the Mattias.
> 
> And to someone that suggested that this thread is about the bickering between a couple of individuals, it isn't even close.
> This is a personal matter between decent human beings that love a domestic pet as a family member and are appalled that this cop has shot 3 dogs (2 of which we know nothing about the circumstances), got away with 2 of them, but the 3rd was covered by the National and Local Media.
> 
> Hopefully Hell will freeze over before this abhorent crime is swept under the rug. Everyday that passes without a whisper from Sheriff Coffey and the department causes festering animosity that the public feels for this cop and the leadership.
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Code: Article 24
> 
> § 11-505. Dogs attacking livestock, etc., may be killed.
> 
> Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
> 
> 
> Looks like the police officer is off the hook... there is no stipulation as the the extent of the injuries to be suffered.... merely the act of attacking...
> 
> I am sorry to steal AvAvid readers find, but here you go child......I told you a while back nothing will happen to the officer.  Thank God!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Code: Article 24
> 
> § 11-505. Dogs attacking livestock, etc., may be killed.
> 
> Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
> 
> 
> Looks like the police officer is off the hook... there is no stipulation as the the extent of the injuries to be suffered.... merely the act of attacking...
> 
> I am sorry to steal AvAvid readers find, but here you go child......I told you a while back nothing will happen to the officer.  Thank God!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know if the dog was "attacking" him or not?
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Code: Article 24
> 
> § 11-505. Dogs attacking livestock, etc., may be killed.
> 
> Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
> 
> 
> Looks like the police officer is off the hook... there is no stipulation as the the extent of the injuries to be suffered.... merely the act of attacking...
> 
> I am sorry to steal AvAvid readers find, but here you go child......I told you a while back nothing will happen to the officer.  Thank God!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amd what does the law say when the dog is on it's own property?
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amd what does the law say when the dog is on it's own property?
> 
> 
> 
> The law doesn't differentuate.  An animal v. a human the human should always be protected dear.
Click to expand...


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> missperky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The law doesn't differentuate.  An animal v. a human the human should always be protected dear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does here in St Marys County, I'm looking at Charles County now.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

missperky said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does here in St Marys County, I'm looking at Charles County now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to correct you Ms. Perky, but it doesn't matter in St. Mary's County any more than any other county.  State law supercedes any county code.
Click to expand...


----------



## virgovictoria

Will someone please start a new thread when new news regarding the outcome of this situation has been provided?  That is, statement from the officer involved, official charges pressed, regular posters of this thread finally withdraw from handcramps or sanity....

TIA


----------



## missperky

tom88 said:
			
		

> missperky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to correct you Ms. Perky, but it doesn't matter in St. Mary's County any more than any other county.  State law supercedes any county code.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok. Sure.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mikeinsmd

virgovictoria said:
			
		

> Will someone please start a new thread when new news regarding the outcome of this situation has been provided?  That is, statement from the officer involved, official charges pressed, regular posters of this thread finally withdraw from handcramps or sanity....
> 
> TIA


Ehet Hem....


----------



## madMAX

*This is one of the stupidest laws I have ever seen!*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maryland Code: Article 24
> 
> § 11-505. Dogs attacking livestock, etc., may be killed.
> 
> Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any poultry or livestock, or attacking human beings whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by these provisions. There shall be no liability on such persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.
> 
> 
> Looks like the police officer is off the hook... there is no stipulation as the the extent of the injuries to be suffered.... merely the act of attacking...
> 
> I am sorry to steal AvAvid readers find, but here you go child......I told you a while back nothing will happen to the officer.  Thank God!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I can shoot and kill any dog walking down the street, and say I that he was getting ready to attack, thats a bunch of bullsh*t if I have ever heard it a day in my life.    No liability from the county, state, or whoever but I will be damn if the officer wouldnt face liability from me.   We would take it to the street and see who was the bigger man then.   Cops are just big wimps with guns.  screw this jerk. (I must clarify who I am calling a jerk - apparently the person with the bad karma thinks I am talking about tom88)   JERK WOULD BE MR. LONG (using the term mr. loosely)
Click to expand...


----------



## JesseJames

Actually a couple right in a neighborhood in Waldorf were getting out of their vehicle. Two dogs came around the corner of their row of townhouses and headed towards them. This off-duty officer was packin' heat and saw the dogs... he shot at them, hitting one in the chest. The dog lived long enough to crawl back home and I guess was taken to the vet. 
So... if you shoot a dog you say was attacking you... you cannot be held liable. The dogs aren't going to disagree, and everyone knows that any dog... even if it was sweet for 10 years, can suddenly attack.


----------



## JesseJames

Bottom line, people have the right to defend themselves. Police, on the property for legal reasons, may find themselves under attack by a dog... when they do they are EXPECTED to defend themselves and are allowed to. They even get to decide how (imagine that).
For those who have said that any cop who comes to their property where their dogs are... if any dog attacks a cop while legally on your property... the cops have a right to defend themselves -- and still, in 2007 THEY WILL!!!!

Also, I have asked around... some cops while serving warrants not only KNOCK on all doors of a house... they CHECK THEM TO SEE IF THEY ARE LOCKED. If the door is unlocked... that residence should be checked to make sure there are no criminals hiding in there (PEOPLE WITH WARRANTS ARE CRIMINALS) and to make sure no one is burglarizing the home. I don't know if the Charles County cops do that, but it is part of looking for bad guys.

I have seen cops enter my neighbors house when they came for an alarm or something and checked a door and found it unlocked.


----------



## FrankBama1234

Please. Kill this thread already. we're never going to get anywhere with this. Let the damn dog rest in peace and hopefully the Mattia's sh%#bag son will learn a valuable lesson....just my opinion.


----------



## pingrr

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Also, I have asked around... some cops while serving warrants not only KNOCK on all doors of a house... they CHECK THEM TO SEE IF THEY ARE LOCKED. If the door is unlocked... that residence should be checked to make sure there are no criminals hiding in there (PEOPLE WITH WARRANTS ARE CRIMINALS) and to make sure no one is burglarizing the home. I don't know if the Charles County cops do that, but it is part of looking for bad guys.
> 
> I have seen cops enter my neighbors house when they came for an alarm or something and checked a door and found it unlocked.



You sir are a moron.  There are several types of warrants.  When it is a warrant involving a person it is normally a bench warrant (this is the kind you get for a failure to appear).

There is also a search warrant(this would be obtained for a specific place and you would need to provide evidence of illegal activities going on in that place to obtain it)

If a door is unlocked that does not give the cop reason to walk into the house to check things out.  That is called breaking and entering.  Breaking implies breaking the plane of the door.  You don't have to break a lock or window for this crime.


----------



## desertrat

pingrr said:
			
		

> You sir are a moron.  There are several types of warrants.  When it is a warrant involving a person it is normally a bench warrant (this is the kind you get for a failure to appear).
> 
> There is also a search warrant(this would be obtained for a specific place and you would need to provide evidence of illegal activities going on in that place to obtain it)
> 
> If a door is unlocked that does not give the cop reason to walk into the house to check things out.  That is called breaking and entering.  Breaking implies breaking the plane of the door.  You don't have to break a lock or window for this crime.


Pod pingr.


----------



## missperky

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Actually a couple right in a neighborhood in Waldorf were getting out of their vehicle. Two dogs came around the corner of their row of townhouses and headed towards them. This off-duty officer was packin' heat and saw the dogs... he shot at them, hitting one in the chest. The dog lived long enough to crawl back home and I guess was taken to the vet.
> So... if you shoot a dog you say was attacking you... you cannot be held liable. The dogs aren't going to disagree, and everyone knows that any dog... even if it was sweet for 10 years, can suddenly attack.



Dogs at large?


----------



## JesseJames

pingrr said:
			
		

> You sir are a moron.  There are several types of warrants.  When it is a warrant involving a person it is normally a bench warrant (this is the kind you get for a failure to appear).
> 
> There is also a search warrant(this would be obtained for a specific place and you would need to provide evidence of illegal activities going on in that place to obtain it)
> 
> If a door is unlocked that does not give the cop reason to walk into the house to check things out.  That is called breaking and entering.  Breaking implies breaking the plane of the door.  You don't have to break a lock or window for this crime.



Well you don't know much about serving warrants.  Warrants are not "normally" bench warrants. Any time someone is charged and fails to answer the notice sent out by the Sheriff's Office (as tom88 has specified before) then eventually it will become a warrant.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter to the cop what kind of warrant it is (unless you want to talk about using additional means to locate the bad guy --IE: can a dog be used to find this guy who fled out the back). There is a difference between felony charges and otherwise (we can discuss that later). But any warrant for a person = upon locating the person, bad guy is arrested and taken to the jail to be booked. PERIOD!!!

A search warrant means they can SMASH in your front door to look for evidence of crimes and/or people.

However, if while looking for bad guy, the cops also do a courtesy check of the house to make sure it is locked up -- and find a door that is unlocked... in the interest of the homeowner, and because that is also an address listed by the bad guy, they may check the house. In that case their reason (integrity is an issue) must be 1.)to make sure the house is okay 2.)while checking the house to make sure it is okay... they may find bad guy that is incidental to checking the house,(no bad guys robbing it). I know it has happened because I have heard officers on the scanner do it all the time, "Headquarters I will be out on a warrant service" then "Headquarters we have an "open door" we will be inside checking the residence." Later they say that the house "checked okay." Sometimes they also say they "Have one in custody."  Think about it!! 

A warrant for a person, with that address listed as a residence gives the police probable cause to believe that person may be there... they cannot FORCE their way in, but if the door is unlocked -- the law allows them in for 2 reasons. To check the residence on behalf of the homeowner, and they call it in to their dispatcher. Second... to look for the bad guy. When asked why they actually went into the house... it was to check it and make sure no one broke in.


----------



## JesseJames

pingrr said:
			
		

> If a door is unlocked that does not give the cop reason to walk into the house to check things out.  That is called breaking and entering.  Breaking implies breaking the plane of the door.  You don't have to break a lock or window for this crime.



You may want to ask any deputy out there what happens if, while checking a house they find a door unlocked. I asked. 
Duh... they call it in and check the inside of the house.
They do it all the time, probably EVERY time.  Of course they are required to make an announcement "POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANYONE HOME?" If there are some signs that the door may have been forced open, they call a dog (and the dog checks the house). If there were no signs of force, after checking it they lock up the house, close the door and leave.
SO... though they came to the house to find a turd, they may also check the house on behalf of the homeowner. IF THEY FIND AN OPEN DOOR (_*which in legal terms can also mean "unlocked"*_), THEY ENTER AND MAKE SURE THE RESIDENCE IS "SECURE", IF WHILE DOING THAT THEY ALSO FIND A GUY HIDING IN A CLOSET, UNDER A BED ETC. YOU CAN BET THEY WILL JERK HIM OUT FROM HIDING AND IDENTIFY HIM. If this guy belongs there and isn't wanted, so be it -- most likely it is bad guy and they lay ahold of him and take him to jail.   
You may not like it... but that is what they do!!! Seriously, ask around.

Which brings us back to the fact that knocking on doors other than the front door, IS THE _LEAST_ OF THINGS OFFICERS LOOKING FOR BAD GUYS DO.


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> You may want to ask any deputy out there what happens if, while checking a house they find a door unlocked. I asked.
> Duh... they call it in and check the inside of the house.
> They do it all the time, probably EVERY time.  Of course they are required to make an announcement "POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANYONE HOME?" If there are some signs that the door may have been forced open, they call a dog (and the dog checks the house). If there were no signs of force, after checking it they lock up the house, close the door and leave.
> SO... though they came to the house to find a turd, they may also check the house on behalf of the homeowner. IF THEY FIND AN OPEN DOOR (_*which in legal terms can also mean "unlocked"*_), THEY ENTER AND MAKE SURE THE RESIDENCE IS "SECURE", IF WHILE DOING THAT THEY ALSO FIND A GUY HIDING IN A CLOSET, UNDER A BED ETC. YOU CAN BET THEY WILL JERK HIM OUT FROM HIDING AND IDENTIFY HIM. If this guy belongs there and isn't wanted, so be it -- most likely it is bad guy and they lay ahold of him and take him to jail.
> You may not like it... but that is what they do!!! Seriously, ask around.
> 
> Which brings us back to the fact that knocking on doors other than the front door, IS THE _LEAST_ OF THINGS OFFICERS LOOKING FOR BAD GUYS DO.




Ok, then I have a question, I dont always shut my door and if I do shut it I dont always lock my front door when I shower, if an officer shows up at my house, I am in the shower, you are saying they have a right to come in my home and scare the life out of me?   I find that really hard to believe.


----------



## mainman

dawn said:
			
		

> when I shower, if an officer shows up at my house, I am in the shower, you are saying they have a right to come in my home and scare the life out of me?


Wouldn't that scenario effectively scare the life out of him?


----------



## PrchJrkr

mainman said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that scenario effectively scare the life out of him?



Badda boom!


----------



## mainman

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> Badda boom!


Thank you, I'm here all week...


----------



## pingrr

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Well you don't know much about serving warrants.  Warrants are not "normally" bench warrants. Any time someone is charged and fails to answer the notice sent out by the Sheriff's Office (as tom88 has specified before) then eventually it will become a warrant.




You have no clue what you are talking about.  I have taken many clases in criminal law and you could not be more wrong.


Here is the definition of a bench warrent - 





> A warrant issued by a judge or court ordering the apprehension of an offender



A bench warrent is the most comon kind of Warrent given out.  You could get them for the following things not apearing for a traffic ticket, not apear for a child suport hearing, jumping bail, exc.  This is a person specific warrent.  This type of warrent does not give the police justifiable cause to search a house simply based on the fact that the door is not locked.  Probable cause to enter the house would be if they saw blood all over the kitchen floor or heard somone screaming.


----------



## pingrr

JesseJames said:
			
		

> You may want to ask any deputy out there what happens if, while checking a house they find a door unlocked. I asked.
> Duh... they call it in and check the inside of the house.
> They do it all the time, probably EVERY time.  Of course they are required to make an announcement "POLICE DEPARTMENT, ANYONE HOME?" If there are some signs that the door may have been forced open, they call a dog (and the dog checks the house). If there were no signs of force, after checking it they lock up the house, close the door and leave.
> SO... though they came to the house to find a turd, they may also check the house on behalf of the homeowner. IF THEY FIND AN OPEN DOOR (_*which in legal terms can also mean "unlocked"*_), THEY ENTER AND MAKE SURE THE RESIDENCE IS "SECURE", IF WHILE DOING THAT THEY ALSO FIND A GUY HIDING IN A CLOSET, UNDER A BED ETC. YOU CAN BET THEY WILL JERK HIM OUT FROM HIDING AND IDENTIFY HIM. If this guy belongs there and isn't wanted, so be it -- most likely it is bad guy and they lay ahold of him and take him to jail.
> You may not like it... but that is what they do!!! Seriously, ask around.
> 
> Which brings us back to the fact that knocking on doors other than the front door, IS THE _LEAST_ OF THINGS OFFICERS LOOKING FOR BAD GUYS DO.




you are out of your mind.  were do you get this door unlocked nonsense.  I don;t lock my door when I go running.  Does that mean the police can come to my house and search it while I'm out for a run then lock the place up?  Would you call lockin gme out of my house in my best interests? 

I don't believe you asked a Deputy these questions.  You are simply lier.  The is a thing called illegal search and seasure.  Which includes searching a house without the homowners permision.  

Also in a case were the police have a search warrent.  This does not mean that they can come into your house and smash anything they want.


----------



## protectmd

As far as warrants are concerned, i've had a warrant served to my house before and the cop showed up at my house asking if I had seen this person. I told him no, and that I don't know what he was talking about, he had said he had "heard" that the person was residing at my house, but this wasn't the case either. He informed me he had a warrant for this person's arrest, and I told him I wanna see it. So I look at the paper, and he had an address listed on there, however it wasn't my address. I asked the deputy if he had gone to that address and he had told me no, and I was like well then perhaps he will have better luck there, and to my understanding he did go there, and found the person and arrested them. 

If he had asked to search my house, (I was not harboring the person they speak of) I would have asked him to get a warrant that had my address on it. Given im not against lawmen or anything but im not going to allow them to cut corners and give up my rights because of someone elses crimes. Im also all about helping LEO's whenever I have the ability to do so, however I will not sacrifice my rights as a citizen of the US so that they may have free reign to roam and search and seize as they please. Im not going to just take a crap on the constitution and forget the 4th amendment in these cases. You give them an inch and they could take a mile.

Point being, if they had broken down my door, looking for this person, and he wasn't there... and the address on the warrant wasn't mine... they would be held liable. I would definately get an attorney and make them pay for the damage... that information of that "he heard" this person was at my house... (I think it was a poor excuse to come on my property) would definately be brought up in court as well. If he had entered my house while I wasn't home, and found "illegal things" after some searching, the evidence wouldn't be admittable in court... because by allowing it, it would in the future pave the way for people to break down doors, and search for whatever they want. Forget addresses, forget the law, forget the constitution, just get a badge and gun and do what you want.


----------



## JesseJames

*Check your Sheriff's Department policy and the LAW.*



			
				pingrr said:
			
		

> you are out of your mind.  were do you get this door unlocked nonsense.  I don;t lock my door when I go running.  Does that mean the police can come to my house and search it while I'm out for a run then lock the place up?  Would you call lockin gme out of my house in my best interests?
> 
> I don't believe you asked a Deputy these questions.  You are simply lier.  The is a thing called illegal search and seasure.  Which includes searching a house without the homowners permision.
> 
> Also in a case were the police have a search warrent.  This does not mean that they can come into your house and smash anything they want.



They would NOT be allowed to come to your house purely to search it. If, in the natural course of their duties they found themselves at your house, and checked the doors (perhaps your alarm went off), and they found an open door -- they would check it. It happens all the time. 
If they were on your property for a LEGAL REASON, and while they were there, checked the doors of your residence and found one unlocked... you can bet, they would check the residence. 
For businesses in the county they are actually encouraged to check the doors during their shift. According to your line of reasoning that would be Burglary as well... but it isn't for the deputies, providing they are not doing it to look for evidence -- they must be ensuring the business (or residence) is secure. 
 
Call the Sheriff's Department then, 301-932-2222 and ask to speak to a deputy. Ask him/her if deputies came to your home (for suspicious activity or whatever) and found the need to check the doors of your home and found an unlocked door -- what they would do.


----------



## JesseJames

protectmd said:
			
		

> If he had asked to search my house, (I was not harboring the person they speak of) I would have asked him to get a warrant that had my address on it. Given im not against lawmen or anything but im not going to allow them to cut corners and give up my rights because of someone elses crimes. Im also all about helping LEO's whenever I have the ability to do so, however I will not sacrifice my rights as a citizen of the US so that they may have free reign to roam and search and seize as they please. Im not going to just take a crap on the constitution and forget the 4th amendment in these cases. You give them an inch and they could take a mile.
> 
> Point being, if they had broken down my door, looking for this person, and he wasn't there... and the address on the warrant wasn't mine... they would be held liable. I would definately get an attorney and make them pay for the damage... that information of that "he heard" this person was at my house... (I think it was a poor excuse to come on my property) would definately be brought up in court as well. If he had entered my house while I wasn't home, and found "illegal things" after some searching, the evidence wouldn't be admittable in court... because by allowing it, it would in the future pave the way for people to break down doors, and search for whatever they want. Forget addresses, forget the law, forget the constitution, just get a badge and gun and do what you want.



They wont BREAK down your door, unless YOU, the wanted person answered then tried to close the door in their face. They would knock, and if you answered... ask. They might ask you if they could search the residence, a search "with your permission."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

The evidence would be as admissible as if they were checking an alarm at your house and while they were in there, purely checking the security of the residence and found your murdered spouse. They may not be allowed to search further w/out a warrant... but you can bet they would secure that house, not allow you return entry until they got their warrant. I think it is called "open view", meaning that if, in the course of an officers natural duties and while there for a legal purpose, s/he saw something out in the open... you might as well STOP THE PRESS, because they are going to seize what they see, prevent you from hiding more, and get a warrant.
If they were checking your residence for security purposes and found your baggies of marijuana sitting around. They could seize what they saw, NOT SEARCH FOR ANY MORE, BUT CONTINUE MAKING SURE THE HOUSE HADN'T BEEN BROKEN INTO... then secure the residence and obtain a warrant. This information is widely available on the internet. 
It all depends on what brought the officer there to begin with. Checking the doors of a residence the cop is at to begin with, FOR A LEGAL REASON (and providing no one is home, or... when they announce "POLICE DEPARTMENT ANYONE HOME", they get no answer... they now have the RESPONSIBILITY to make sure your home is safe. Hell some homeowners come home and find their doors unlocked and believing they locked them call for the police. They are doing this FOR THE HOMEOWNERS!!!! To PROTECT their property.
 
It is called a "warrantless search" based on exigent circumstances, that being a check of the residence because someone may have illegally entered it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.


----------



## JesseJames

I was wrong... it is called "plain view" not "open view" and it applies to any officer who is in an area to view something legally. IE: 
1.)He is called to a home for an alarm, or locate a wanted person.
2.)While checking the alarm, or knocking on doors, he discovers a door unlocked. 

*EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES NOW APPLY * The exigent circumstances, (that the house may have been broken into or entered by a different "bad guy" who might be in the middle of a "BURGLARY" -- which is a very serious felony in Maryland) and that the burglar might escape.

3.) While only checking the residence to make sure it is safe, he observes marijuana on the kitchen counter in "plain view" he may seize it, notify other officers so they can write a warrant, and guard the house ensuring that no one can come in and tamper with/ remove/ or destroy additional evidence of the crime.

4.)While checking a residence for a burglar, they may look anywhere a burglar might hide... under the bed, in a closet etc. (not in your medicine cabinet or dresser drawer) since they are looking for a "man sized" object. If they find a guy they have a warrant for, well they will seize him too.

Point is, the officer was in the house legally based on EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES and may seize evidence of a crime based on PLAIN VIEW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine

AND WHILE DOING ALL OF THIS THE OFFICER HAS THE RIGHT TO WARD OFF ATTACK!!!


----------



## Mikeinsmd




----------



## smcop

protectmd said:
			
		

> As far as warrants are concerned, i've had a warrant served to my house before and the cop showed up at my house asking if I had seen this person. I told him no, and that I don't know what he was talking about, he had said he had "heard" that the person was residing at my house, but this wasn't the case either. He informed me he had a warrant for this person's arrest, and I told him I wanna see it. So I look at the paper, and he had an address listed on there, however it wasn't my address. I asked the deputy if he had gone to that address and he had told me no, and I was like well then perhaps he will have better luck there, and to my understanding he did go there, and found the person and arrested them.
> 
> If he had asked to search my house, (I was not harboring the person they speak of) I would have asked him to get a warrant that had my address on it. Given im not against lawmen or anything but im not going to allow them to cut corners and give up my rights because of someone elses crimes. Im also all about helping LEO's whenever I have the ability to do so, however I will not sacrifice my rights as a citizen of the US so that they may have free reign to roam and search and seize as they please. Im not going to just take a crap on the constitution and forget the 4th amendment in these cases. You give them an inch and they could take a mile.
> 
> Point being, if they had broken down my door, looking for this person, and he wasn't there... and the address on the warrant wasn't mine... they would be held liable. I would definately get an attorney and make them pay for the damage... that information of that "he heard" this person was at my house... (I think it was a poor excuse to come on my property) would definately be brought up in court as well. If he had entered my house while I wasn't home, and found "illegal things" after some searching, the evidence wouldn't be admittable in court... because by allowing it, it would in the future pave the way for people to break down doors, and search for whatever they want. Forget addresses, forget the law, forget the constitution, just get a badge and gun and do what you want.


 I agree with your post and I think most police officers would as well.  The only way to "break down a door" is if we were to see evidence, contraband, or a crime in progress from a place we are legally entitled to be.  In the example of the mistaken address recently in Annapolis, I don't have all the facts but if they did indeed go to the wrong place someone should be held accountable.  If it was an error in good faith then I assure you someone will be held accountable.  If it was something worse, then other consequences should be delivered.

I appreciate your point of view and agree with you.  We all have rights, and while sometimes it makes my job more difficult, fair is fair and we have to deal with the system we have, which I believe is the best system in the world.


----------



## FrankBama1234

Kill This Thread. It Has Gotten So Far Off Track. In The Last 3 Pages There Is No Mention Of The Dead Dog.


----------



## itsbob

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Kill This Thread. It Has Gotten So Far Off Track. In The Last 3 Pages There Is No Mention Of The Dead Dog.


No mention of who?


----------



## JesseJames

*Long is likely immune from punishment.*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Kill This Thread. It Has Gotten So Far Off Track. In The Last 3 Pages There Is No Mention Of The Dead Dog.



Well here it the brunt of it. We have, I think by now at least demonstrated that Long was in the right -- being at the Mattias because he received information (likely from the wanted son's paperwork given to the courthouse by the son) that was from a reliable source by Law Enforcement standards.

He was WELL within his right to go to other doors of the house, and at least KNOCK on them. Trust me he had the right to check them as well. (Perhaps another thread). Long went to the back door.

Whenever an officer is within his legal, normal duties (serving any kind of arrest warrant) s/he has the right to defend himself. After all, self defense is a basic human right. Law Enforcement officers often find themselves on other people's property -- if they are legally there, they can defend themselves. ANY PERSON WHO IS SOMEWHERE WITH LEGAL RIGHT, IS ALLOWED TO DEFEND HIM/HERSELF WHILE THERE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)

On top of that, the law was also specifically quoted dealing with dogs attacking, and though we don't like it -- Long fell into that category. Long had a right (and a responsibility if he wanted to survive the attack) to shoot poor Max. Max had a right to protect his property but not from a cop who is there legally. Max didn't know it though.

I think that with all of our input we can see... Officer Long isn't going to suffer even a reprimand, and rightfully so -- IF THINGS WENT DOWN AS LONG LIKELY SAYS THEY DID, and as far as we know, there is no evidence to the contrary.

Even if someone wanted to punish Long... they couldn't legally do so. They would probably be facing their own lawsuit if they did.

 :


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Well here it the brunt of it. We have, I think by now at least demonstrated that Long was in the right -- being at the Mattias because he received information (likely from the wanted son's paperwork given to the courthouse by the son) that was from a reliable source by Law Enforcement standards.
> 
> He was WELL within his right to go to other doors of the house, and at least KNOCK on them. Trust me he had the right to check them as well. (Perhaps another thread). Long went to the back door.
> 
> Whenever an officer is within his legal, normal duties (serving any kind of arrest warrant) s/he has the right to defend himself. After all, self defense is a basic human right. Law Enforcement officers often find themselves on other people's property -- if they are legally there, they can defend themselves. ANY PERSON WHO IS SOMEWHERE WITH LEGAL RIGHT, IS ALLOWED TO DEFEND HIM/HERSELF WHILE THERE.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)
> 
> On top of that, the law was also specifically quoted dealing with dogs attacking, and though we don't like it -- Long fell into that category. Long had a right (and a responsibility if he wanted to survive the attack) to shoot poor Max. Max had a right to protect his property but not from a cop who is there legally. Max didn't know it though.
> 
> I think that with all of our input we can see... Officer Long isn't going to suffer even a reprimand, and rightfully so -- IF THINGS WENT DOWN AS LONG LIKELY SAYS THEY DID, and as far as we know, there is no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Even if someone wanted to punish Long... they couldn't legally do so. They would probably be facing their own lawsuit if they did.
> 
> :




Well if long came to my house and shot my dog, he would pay, beleive me -- that is a promise!

I do not agree with your post above, but have refrained from making too many comments (as should be noted by others).   I dont care if he was there to serve a warrant, knock on one door, and go home, come back in the evening or even  on a saturday when people are more than likely to be home, not in the middle of the work day.   Long is wrong and is standing behind his badge to be a bully and needs to have ever well deserved complaint put in his file, superiors do notice when the files have complaints and they need to act accordingly.    Cops do get fired mr. james, the are not indespensible


----------



## 88stringslouie

*A dollar to a donut*



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> Well if long came to my house and shot my dog, he would pay, beleive me -- that is a promise!
> 
> I do not agree with your post above, but have refrained from making too many comments (as should be noted by others).   I dont care if he was there to serve a warrant, knock on one door, and go home, come back in the evening or even  on a saturday when people are more than likely to be home, not in the middle of the work day.   Long is wrong and is standing behind his badge to be a bully and needs to have ever well deserved complaint put in his file, superiors do notice when the files have complaints and they need to act accordingly.    Cops do get fired mr. james, the are not indespensible



If Coffey doesn't fire this guy, mark my words, he won't be sheriff come next election.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Well if long came to my house and shot my dog, he would pay, beleive me -- that is a promise!
> 
> I do not agree with your post above, but have refrained from making too many comments (as should be noted by others).   I dont care if he was there to serve a warrant, knock on one door, and go home, come back in the evening or even  on a saturday when people are more than likely to be home, not in the middle of the work day.   Long is wrong and is standing behind his badge to be a bully and needs to have ever well deserved complaint put in his file, superiors do notice when the files have complaints and they need to act accordingly.    Cops do get fired mr. james, the are not indespensible



So, what you are saying is that Long should have let the dog bite/maul him and not protect himself?? This will have no outcome of the Sheriff's race. In 3 years everyone would have forgotten about Max. And the 3 of you who think he should be fired or strung up, will not matter...just my opinion.


----------



## FrankBama1234

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Well here it the brunt of it. We have, I think by now at least demonstrated that Long was in the right -- being at the Mattias because he received information (likely from the wanted son's paperwork given to the courthouse by the son) that was from a reliable source by Law Enforcement standards.
> 
> He was WELL within his right to go to other doors of the house, and at least KNOCK on them. Trust me he had the right to check them as well. (Perhaps another thread). Long went to the back door.
> 
> Whenever an officer is within his legal, normal duties (serving any kind of arrest warrant) s/he has the right to defend himself. After all, self defense is a basic human right. Law Enforcement officers often find themselves on other people's property -- if they are legally there, they can defend themselves. ANY PERSON WHO IS SOMEWHERE WITH LEGAL RIGHT, IS ALLOWED TO DEFEND HIM/HERSELF WHILE THERE.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)
> 
> On top of that, the law was also specifically quoted dealing with dogs attacking, and though we don't like it -- Long fell into that category. Long had a right (and a responsibility if he wanted to survive the attack) to shoot poor Max. Max had a right to protect his property but not from a cop who is there legally. Max didn't know it though.
> 
> I think that with all of our input we can see... Officer Long isn't going to suffer even a reprimand, and rightfully so -- IF THINGS WENT DOWN AS LONG LIKELY SAYS THEY DID, and as far as we know, there is no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Even if someone wanted to punish Long... they couldn't legally do so. They would probably be facing their own lawsuit if they did.
> 
> :



I agree whole 100%.....just my opinion.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying is that Long should have let the dog bite/maul him and not protect himself?? This will have no outcome of the Sheriff's race. In 3 years everyone would have forgotten about Max. And the 3 of you who think he should be fired or strung up, will not matter...just my opinion.



I'll think that you'll need to consider changing demographics of the area.
Also, I still think that Long needs to be investigated for shooting 3 dogs.
You have no evidence that this guy did shoot a dog that was tied up.
None.  I have no evidence that the dog wasn't running loose either.

I do know that this guy has a prior history of shooting dogs. I think that Coffey saying (and where did he actually say this??) that Long was investigated and cleared was underhanded.  I feel that he owes many of the public an apology for the ####ty way that the PR was done regarding the situation.  I think that Long needs to be terminated.



I did not read it in the newspaper nor see it on TV.


----------



## otter

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I think that Long needs to be terminated.



 Nothing worse than someone with a  gun and no common sense.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying is that Long should have let the dog bite/maul him and not protect himself?? This will have no outcome of the Sheriff's race. In 3 years everyone would have forgotten about Max. And the 3 of you who think he should be fired or strung up, will not matter...just my opinion.




Well newsflash, Frank, I assure you I will remember in three years, and will do what I can to remind people.  During the last election, I wrote letters to the editor saying how incompetent our old sherriff was and how we needed a change, so no, I dont think it will be forgotten.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Well newsflash, Frank, I assure you I will remember in three years, and will do what I can to remind people.  During the last election, I wrote letters to the editor saying how incompetent our old sherriff was and how we needed a change, so no, I dont think it will be forgotten.



WOW. So because of your letters Davis lost? Davis bore the brunt of the democratic backlash. It had nothing to do with your letters. You still haven't answered my question. Do you think we would have been better off if Long had let that dog bite and maul him? I can't fathom why you people can't believe this was not investigated fully or why you think Long is out to rid the world of dogs, one at a time. If you read news from coast to coast, you will see no police dept. comments on pending investigations. This is to prevent it from being compromised...just my opinion.


----------



## virgovictoria

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying is that Long should have let the dog bite/maul him and not protect himself?? This will have no outcome of the Sheriff's race. In 3 years everyone would have forgotten about Max. And the 3 of you who think he should be fired or strung up, will not matter...just my opinion.


I appreciate that you have enough respect to use the pet's name, Max.  It allows those who may have forgotten that he wasn't "just a dog" mauling Long (as you "hinted"), but a key character in this right v. wrong scenario.  I will go a step further and say he may be the victim of what may be found to be a senseless murder of a family member.

In such a case, if the person committing a crime is allowed to continue in law enforcement, I think I'd remember come election time.  Folks don't look kindly upon their family being taken from them senselessly.  Supporters don't look kindly at loose cannons in the ranks.  I don't see where memory would lack.  :shrug:


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> WOW. So because of your letters Davis lost? Davis bore the brunt of the democratic backlash. It had nothing to do with your letters. You still haven't answered my question. Do you think we would have been better off if Long had let that dog bite and maul him? I can't fathom why you people can't believe this was not investigated fully or why you think Long is out to rid the world of dogs, one at a time. If you read news from coast to coast, you will see no police dept. comments on pending investigations. This is to prevent it from being compromised...just my opinion.



You are assuming that Long was telling the truth.  Since he's shot 2 other dogs, I don't think that we can assume.

"What if" Max was simply laying there on the tether, not in any type of attack mode and Long shot him?  I'm telling you that I will not make an assumption of innocence on Long's part until:

1)  There are given explanations as to why he shot 2 other dogs.
2)  Evidence is released that he was attacked.  
3)  I would like to see video from a satellite of this alledged attack.
     As well as the records from the EMT of the medical attention that he    received that day.

If you haven't noticed, the population is changing here in Chuck County and many new residents want to rid the county government of the "Good 'Ole Boy" network.  They aren't done yet, and I believe that you'll say more changes come the next election.


----------



## camily

Ok. The dog was NOT tied up. He had a hold of Chris' leg and he turned and shot the dog to get him off him. Yes, he has shot other dogs but it was because the owner was being attacked and asked that the dogs be shot to get them off the owner.


----------



## missperky

camily said:
			
		

> Ok. The dog was NOT tied up. He had a hold of Chris' leg and he turned and shot the dog to get him off him. Yes, he has shot other dogs but it was because the owner was being attacked and asked that the dogs be shot to get them off the owner.



It's all hear say because we were not there. :shrug:


----------



## camily

missperky said:
			
		

> It's all hear say because we were not there. :shrug:


Tru dat.


----------



## missperky

camily said:
			
		

> Tru dat.


----------



## missperky

missperky said:
			
		

> It's all hear say because we were not there. :shrug:



Charles County officer ... 06-10-2007 10:10 PM camily -- is totally against the Mattias you shouldnt side with her -- remember she is friends with the cop.




Ok. :shrug:


----------



## camily

Charles County officer ... 06-10-2007 10:12 PM you nasty whore, when he gets tired of your blow jobs and your streched pus*y and kicks your ass to the curb, see if you defend him them  

BWA HAA HAA!!!!!
Retard


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> You are assuming that Long was telling the truth.  Since he's shot 2 other dogs, I don't think that we can assume.
> 
> "What if" Max was simply laying there on the tether, not in any type of attack mode and Long shot him?  I'm telling you that I will not make an assumption of innocence on Long's part until:
> 
> 1)  There are given explanations as to why he shot 2 other dogs.
> 2)  Evidence is released that he was attacked.
> 3)  I would like to see video from a satellite of this alledged attack.
> As well as the records from the EMT of the medical attention that he    received that day.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the population is changing here in Chuck County and many new residents want to rid the county government of the "Good 'Ole Boy" network.  They aren't done yet, and I believe that you'll say more changes come the next election.



What evidence is there that you determined Long is lying? What are these satellites you speak of? Are you saying there is some Government conspiracy to cover up the fact Long shot a dog? Please, get a grip. Again, no one will answer my question. "would it have been better for Long to have the dog bite and maul him?"....just my opinion.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> What evidence is there that you determined Long is lying? What are these satellites you speak of? Are you saying there is some Government conspiracy to cover up the fact Long shot a dog? Please, get a grip. Again, no one will answer my question. "would it have been better for Long to have the dog bite and maul him?"....just my opinion.




How could the Max bite and maul the officer when Max was chained up? If the officer just would have  not went to the back door, none of this would have happened.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> How could the Max bite and maul the officer when Max was chained up? If the officer just would have  not went to the back door, none of this would have happened.


 So police officers should not look behind houses for people who have warrants?


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> So police officers should not look behind houses for people who have warrants?




This was a child support warrant, not a murder warrant.  The officer went to the house in the middle of a work day.  Once he peeked in the windows and got no response after trying three doors, one would think that no one is home.  I am sure they have millions of warrants to serve, try someone else and come back later in the afternooon, odds are that people do work.

I would tend to guess that if you have a warrant out for you, or even if you have been in trouble with the law, if a police man shows up at your door, odds are you aren't going to open the door.  They live in a house that has an upstairs, I think it would be a pretty safe bet that if a cop came knocking, one would more than likely run upstairs, where you couldnt be seen an officer peeks through the window.   --JUST MY OPINION--


----------



## smcop

dawn said:
			
		

> This was a child support warrant, not a murder warrant.  The officer went to the house in the middle of a work day.  Once he peeked in the windows and got no response after trying three doors, one would think that no one is home.  I am sure they have millions of warrants to serve, try someone else and come back later in the afternooon, odds are that people do work.
> 
> I would tend to guess that if you have a warrant out for you, or even if you have been in trouble with the law, if a police man shows up at your door, odds are you aren't going to open the door.  They live in a house that has an upstairs, I think it would be a pretty safe bet that if a cop came knocking, one would more than likely run upstairs, where you couldnt be seen an officer peeks through the window.   --JUST MY OPINION--


 So we should only look behind houses when we have warrants for murderers.  So if a guy fails to pay for the child he brought into the world we shouldn't look hard for him, just hope the deadbeat turns himself in.  Do deadbeats who don't pay their child support always work?  I say give the cop kudo's for trying to go the extra mile and instead of just walking away after nobody answered going the extra mile.  After all, the cop gets paid the same if he serves the warrant or not!


----------



## dawn

smcop said:
			
		

> So we should only look behind houses when we have warrants for murderers.  So if a guy fails to pay for the child he brought into the world we shouldn't look hard for him, just hope the deadbeat turns himself in.  Do deadbeats who don't pay their child support always work?  I say give the cop kudo's for trying to go the extra mile and instead of just walking away after nobody answered going the extra mile.  After all, the cop gets paid the same if he serves the warrant or not!




No, thats not what I am saying.  given on previous experience, just because you arrest the man, doesnt mean you are going to get any money for the child.   No usually deadbeats dont work, but 9 out of 10 times the deadbeats live with people that do work and if you are going to serve a warrant and happen upon the house where the deadbeat lives and the actual homeowner is home, I would think (based on my experience) the responsible working person would direct you to the deadbeat.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> This was a child support warrant, not a murder warrant.  The officer went to the house in the middle of a work day.  Once he peeked in the windows and got no response after trying three doors, one would think that no one is home.  I am sure they have millions of warrants to serve, try someone else and come back later in the afternooon, odds are that people do work.
> 
> I would tend to guess that if you have a warrant out for you, or even if you have been in trouble with the law, if a police man shows up at your door, odds are you aren't going to open the door.  They live in a house that has an upstairs, I think it would be a pretty safe bet that if a cop came knocking, one would more than likely run upstairs, where you couldnt be seen an officer peeks through the window.   --JUST MY OPINION--


Again, how do you know Max was tied up? You are only going on what the owner says. Of course he's going to say the dog was tied up. And, I'm sure the drug dealers and thieves would be happy if the police went after murderers. The plain truth is if that dead beat would have paid his child support and not lied about where he lived, this whole thing could have been avoided. I blame the sh&*Bag son. Not Long. I agree, he went the extra mile to go around the back of the house. If that was your child, wouldn't you want him to do the same??? And please, answer the question already, I've asked it several times. What was Long to do, wait for the the dog to bite and maul hime before he protected himself???


----------



## dawn

*I will probably get blasted for this one!*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Again, how do you know Max was tied up? You are only going on what the owner says. Of course he's going to say the dog was tied up. And, I'm sure the drug dealers and thieves would be happy if the police went after murderers. The plain truth is if that dead beat would have paid his child support and not lied about where he lived, this whole thing could have been avoided. I blame the sh&*Bag son. Not Long. I agree, he went the extra mile to go around the back of the house. If that was your child, wouldn't you want him to do the same??? And please, answer the question already, I've asked it several times. What was Long to do, wait for the the dog to bite and maul hime before he protected himself???



Frank we are going to continue to differ in opinions, how do you know the dog was loose?  You are only going on what the officer says (just as I am going on what the Mattia's say).  Of course he (Long) is going to say the dog was loose (which is what you say about the Mattia's).   And I didn't mean that murderers are the only people that have warrants, I know drug dealers (which I hate and wish each one off the face of the earth) and thieves have warrants as well.  

I have answered your question -- I don't think the dog was loose so my answer will remain the same, Long wont get bit or mauled if he stayed away from a chained dog!

I also agree the son should pay.  You ask if it was my child would I want him (Long) to do the same?  I cant answer that the way you would want me to, and I will give you my reason --  I waited to a point in my life where I would not need to depend on anyone to help me if I ever became a single parent, and I in all honesty if a father is ordered to pay child support then that father has rights to the child.  If my sons father decided he didn't want my son in his life anymore, no I would not force him to pay child support because then he has rights.   I wouldn't want any kind of adult influence in my sons life that would feel as though he was a burden.   Don't get me wrong, my husband is great and a great father, but if he did decide he didn't want to be a part of my sons life if we didn't work out, then No, I would not force him to be a part of his life.    I may think different if I needed to depend on him for income, but fortunately I have been a very independent person and continue to be and I can say that I would not need to depend on any help if the need ever arrived, so I cant answer that question the way you would want me to.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*All evidence presented points to...*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> What evidence is there that you determined Long is lying? What are these satellites you speak of? Are you saying there is some Government conspiracy to cover up the fact Long shot a dog? Please, get a grip. Again, no one will answer my question. "would it have been better for Long to have the dog bite and maul him?"....just my opinion.



For Long to say (through whom, I have no idea) that Max "bit him" along the side of the house is an incredibly stupid excuse and no defense whatsoever.  Personally, I've heard nothing from Long.  It's only been from the spokesman from the Sheriff's Dept. Max and any other dog (that was loose) would have met him at the front of the house before he got out of his car (or truck, or whatever he was driving).  No one, and I mean no one can convince me otherwise.  
The only thing that will satisfy me is a trial with a competent trial attorney that doesn't live is Chucky County.
What satellites?  There are plenty of surveillance satellites, that with the right amount of money, would present the evidence that we need.  This has stink written all over it.  The apologists should wait until Long surfaces and makes a public statement.  Once he is found innocent in a court of law, then I'll apologize.

We are airing our emotional opinions.  We are allowed to do that.  Why defend a guy that can't come out and say for himself as to why he shot the muzzle off Max, or why he had to shoot Max 7 times?  Or, why he has shot two other dogs?  I've seen someone explain why he killed two other dogs.  I'm interested as to how this "person from the ether" knows so much about Mr. Long's "incidents" with the other two dogs.

I'll answer your question.  Yes, this cop should have let Max bite him while he got his mace out and sprayed it in Max's face.  This cop knew Max, and the cop also knows as we all know that he's not telling the truth about the events that led up to him shooting Max to death, using a ridiculous amount of fire power to turn him into mince meat.  Did Max have any other incidents of biting and mauling other policemen?  Have other policemen visited the house?  Mr. Long is the only one that knows the truth about the incident.  
Unless there is a trial, you'll never prove his innocence to me.

If you are a policeman, I'm sure you are speaking off the record.  If any of these other apologists are policemen, I am sure that they are speaking off the record as well.  Therefore, you know no more information than anyone else on this board, so your opinion means no more than mine or anyone else's.


----------



## madMAX

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> For Long to say (through whom, I have no idea) that Max "bit him" along the side of the house is an incredibly stupid excuse and no defense whatsoever.  Personally, I've heard nothing from Long.  It's only been from the spokesman from the Sheriff's Dept. Max and any other dog (that was loose) would have met him at the front of the house before he got out of his car (or truck, or whatever he was driving).  No one, and I mean no one can convince me otherwise.
> The only thing that will satisfy me is a trial with a competent trial attorney that doesn't live is Chucky County.
> What satellites?  There are plenty of surveillance satellites, that with the right amount of money, would present the evidence that we need.  This has stink written all over it.  The apologists should wait until Long surfaces and makes a public statement.  Once he is found innocent in a court of law, then I'll apologize.
> 
> We are airing our emotional opinions.  We are allowed to do that.  Why defend a guy that can't come out and say for himself as to why he shot the muzzle off Max, or why he had to shoot Max 7 times?  Or, why he has shot two other dogs?  I've seen someone explain why he killed two other dogs.  I'm interested as to how this "person from the ether" knows so much about Mr. Long's "incidents" with the other two dogs.
> 
> I'll answer your question.  Yes, this cop should have let Max bite him while he got his mace out and sprayed it in Max's face.  This cop knew Max, and the cop also knows as we all know that he's not telling the truth about the events that led up to him shooting Max to death, using a ridiculous amount of fire power to turn him into mince meat.  Did Max have any other incidents of biting and mauling other policemen?  Have other policemen visited the house?  Mr. Long is the only one that knows the truth about the incident.
> Unless there is a trial, you'll never prove his innocence to me.
> 
> If you are a policeman, I'm sure you are speaking off the record.  If any of these other apologists are policemen, I am sure that they are speaking off the record as well.  Therefore, you know no more information than anyone else on this board, so your opinion means no more than mine or anyone else's.


----------



## 88stringslouie

And another thing.
If Long went around the side of the house, tried to knock on the door, and Max attacked him while on the lead, he should have been bitten and mauled.

Max was on his property, protecting his owner's property.  If someone comes on my property, and while my dog is outside on a lead, shoots my dog, I have every right to defend and protect my property.


----------



## madMAX

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> And another thing.
> If Long went around the side of the house, tried to knock on the door, and Max attacked him while on the lead, he should have been bitten and mauled.
> 
> Max was on his property, protecting his owner's property.  If someone comes on my property, and while my dog is outside on a lead, shoots my dog, I have every right to defend and protect my property.


----------



## JesseJames

dawn said:
			
		

> Well if long came to my house and shot my dog, he would pay, beleive me -- that is a promise!
> 
> I do not agree with your post above, but have refrained from making too many comments (as should be noted by others).   I dont care if he was there to serve a warrant, knock on one door, and go home, come back in the evening or even  on a saturday when people are more than likely to be home, not in the middle of the work day.   Long is wrong and is standing behind his badge to be a bully and needs to have ever well deserved complaint put in his file, superiors do notice when the files have complaints and they need to act accordingly.    Cops do get fired mr. james, the are not indespensible



Dawn... I believe that it has been demonstrated here that it is VERY LIKELY illegal for the Sheriff to punish Long. The laws are in place saying that if a loose dog attacks someone who is legally somewhere (and Long was because that is his job) *LONG WAS NOT TRESPASSING*.
If you do not like the laws as they have been written, vote to change them. Surely you do not condone the breaking of a law to seek satisfaction/revenge? I hope that you wouldn't require Sheriff Coffey to step outside of the boundaries we pay him to enforce so the Mattia family and other's get their "pound of flesh." It would seem to me that would be hypocritical as well as illegal.


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> If Coffey doesn't fire this guy, mark my words, he won't be sheriff come next election.



With the laws that are in place... IF HE DID FIRE LONG HE WOULD BE UP FOR A LAWSUIT AND PROBABLY IMPEACHMENT... it is illegal to punish Long in this case. All laws (and they have been quoted here) prevent that.

Are you also suggesting that Coffey step outside of the law to protect his own career, wrather than the laws he has sworn to uphold? 
Guys that is immoral!!!!


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Hogwash*



			
				JesseJames said:
			
		

> Dawn... I believe that it has been demonstrated here that it is VERY LIKELY illegal for the Sheriff to punish Long. The laws are in place saying that if a loose dog attacks someone who is legally somewhere (and Long was because that is his job) *LONG WAS NOT TRESPASSING*.
> If you do not like the laws as they have been written, vote to change them. Surely you do not condone the breaking of a law to seek satisfaction/revenge? I hope that you wouldn't require Sheriff Coffey to step outside of the boundaries we pay him to enforce so the Mattia family and other's get their "pound of flesh." It would seem to me that would be hypocritical as well as illegal.



I think Dawn is speaking of a civil trial for Officer Long.


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> You have no evidence that this guy did shoot a dog that was tied up.None.  I have no evidence that the dog wasn't running loose either.
> 
> I do know that this guy has a prior history of shooting dogs. I think that Coffey saying (and where did he actually say this??) that Long was investigated and cleared was underhanded.  I feel that he owes many of the public an apology for the ####ty way that the PR was done regarding the situation.  I think that Long needs to be terminated.



1.) After using deadly force in EVERY case, the officer is investigated. Long couldn't have been in a place to shoot the second dog, unless he was cleared of the first incident. Those investigations have occurred and are OVER!!! Purely by the fact Long was able to attempt to serve the warrant on the Mattia's son, and carry a gun to do it, indicates he was investigated on the other shootings.

2.) You state that you have no evidence that the dog was loose or tied up, yet without evidence you want Long fired? Would you consider yourself a RATIONAL and FAIR individual? I would almost look forward to meeting someone you fired, because if you did it with the same standards you are showing here... "guilty w/no proof, and guilty of no crime because of the law"... your company would definetly be handing over some of its funds in the lawsuit.

3.) You want the Sheriff to apologize better, to the public because an officer is alive with minimal injury after he did what police are trained to do... rightly protect himself?  What exactly should he apologize for? How do you go about apologizing when the officer was RIGHT? 

It is very likely someone should apologize for their mostly nice dog suddenly attacking someone. I know there are many people out there who have had to apologize for their dogs biting someone who was legally on their property. I haven't heard anyone say they are sorry Max bit Long. So, I will...

Long, I am sorry you got bit and sorry that you are suffering such personal attack for trying to make sure you make it home safe to your family.


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Dawn... I believe that it has been demonstrated here that it is VERY LIKELY illegal for the Sheriff to punish Long. The laws are in place saying that if a loose dog attacks someone who is legally somewhere (and Long was because that is his job) *LONG WAS NOT TRESPASSING*.
> If you do not like the laws as they have been written, vote to change them. Surely you do not condone the breaking of a law to seek satisfaction/revenge? I hope that you wouldn't require Sheriff Coffey to step outside of the boundaries we pay him to enforce so the Mattia family and other's get their "pound of flesh." It would seem to me that would be hypocritical as well as illegal.



It is appearing that cops can do no wrong, that they can do whatever they please and it is justifiable because they are a police officer.  That they can shoot to kill because they feel threaten, even though the threat that they claim could be up for debate (if there is no one there but the cop and the person/animal that appears to be making the threat, well animals cant talk, and the cop knows that usually their word is gold and 9 out of 10 times the public and the department eyes and will beleive what the cop says (even if he is lying, no one would know because there are only two sides and the cops side is usually taken verbabium)  that police can trespass (without recourse -- even if they have the wrong house, i.e., Annapolis), it just appears that police can do what they want and no punishment will be given.    I feel as though some officers feel as though they are above the law and they have the badge to protect them and it is very difficult for me to think that long is one of the good cops that go out and put their life on the line, his past history (that has been made public) paints the picture of a person that stands behind his badge as a way to keep himself out of trouble.

I will say that there are many many police officers that I respect and appreciate that they have chosen the career to put their life on the line to protect the public.   I know there are many good cops out there, but I just don't feel like Long is one of the good cops and even though it is my feeling, I am voicing my opinion just like everyone else.  I feel like he in a sense is a coward that relies on his gun entirely too much.


----------



## dawn

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I think Dawn is speaking of a civil trial for Officer Long.




Yes, Louie, I was.  Thank you.


----------



## dawn

JesseJames said:
			
		

> 1.) After using deadly force in EVERY case, the officer is investigated. Long couldn't have been in a place to shoot the second dog, unless he was cleared of the first incident. Those investigations have occurred and are OVER!!! Purely by the fact Long was able to attempt to serve the warrant on the Mattia's son, and carry a gun to do it, indicates he was investigated on the other shootings.
> 
> 2.) You state that you have no evidence that the dog was loose or tied up, yet without evidence you want Long fired? Would you consider yourself a RATIONAL and FAIR individual? I would almost look forward to meeting someone you fired, because if you did it with the same standards you are showing here... "guilty w/no proof, and guilty of no crime because of the law"... your company would definetly be handing over some of its funds in the lawsuit.
> 
> 3.) You want the Sheriff to apologize better, to the public because an officer is alive with minimal injury after he did what police are trained to do... rightly protect himself?  What exactly should he apologize for? How do you go about apologizing when the officer was RIGHT?
> 
> It is very likely someone should apologize for their mostly nice dog suddenly attacking someone. I know there are many people out there who have had to apologize for their dogs biting someone who was legally on their property. I haven't heard anyone say they are sorry Max bit Long. So, I will...
> 
> Long, I am sorry you got bit and sorry that you are suffering such personal attack for trying to make sure you make it home safe to your family.




How do you know that Long was bitten?


----------



## JesseJames

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> You are assuming that Long was telling the truth.  Since he's shot 2 other dogs, I don't think that we can assume.
> 
> "What if" Max was simply laying there on the tether, not in any type of attack mode and Long shot him?  I'm telling you that I will not make an assumption of innocence on Long's part until:
> 
> 1)  There are given explanations as to why he shot 2 other dogs.
> 2)  Evidence is released that he was attacked.
> 3)  I would like to see video from a satellite of this alledged attack.
> As well as the records from the EMT of the medical attention that he    received that day.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the population is changing here in Chuck County and many new residents want to rid the county government of the "Good 'Ole Boy" network.  They aren't done yet, and I believe that you'll say more changes come the next election.



Long shot other dogs to protect himself, and one to protect an animal control officer from what I have heard... from very reliable sources.

That "good ole boy network" is the one that terminates someone's employment to satisfy some other "good ole boy" regardless of the right and wrong of it. The law says that as long as the cop was protecting himself from the attack of Max, he is in the right.

Yet you would have Long fired, even though it is point blank illegal? That is a "good ole boy" standard if I ever saw one. Same as changing hiring standards to make sure that the right new people are hired, to satisfy a changing Charles Co. -- that is "good ole boy" if I ever saw one. 

Keep the same standards and let those that are qualified step up and get hired... those who can't, regardless of who wants to see them on the street, are unqualified, and - sorry about your luck, background, ability to pass the required tests - you ain't working here. It doesn't matter how much Charles Co. is changing. No... there is no "good ole boy" program at work yet, but I gather you are implying that we get to look forward to those standards? The Department will go to blazes in hurry, ripe with all the scandal that comes with hiring poorly qualified applicants just to please certain members of the public. And every cop, whether right or wrong, who defends himself and offends the "changing group" will be *terminated*? Regardless of the legality of the affair? Are you for real? 

There is NO OTHER PROOF AVAILABLE BUT LONG'S STORY (for now). Oh and the fact that that choker collar... isn't attached to the tether at all. Neither end... if Max was tied, using the choker, one end would still be attached. Proof that Max, if he was wearing that choker as the Mattias said, then Max wasn't tied up.

We are Americans (I am presuming) and American Justice says *innocent until PROVEN guilty*... without proof, Long goes free and we must stand by that. If Max was laying there and Long did just go up and shoot him (God only knows WHY a cop would subject himself to the questions the Sheriff's Department would have for him), but if he did... termination is the least of his problems, along with the lawsuits. I agree PUNISH him then. I will stand with the crowd in front of the gallows. Most of us would want that, if Long snuck up on Max and just started blasting him. But most of us see the ridiculousness of that scenario. 

Oh and there is no satellite dedicated to the Mattia residence to video tape the goings on in their back yard. The one that was had to be re-fitted to provide better cell phone service in Hughesville. So... the video ain't EVER going to be available. Let that one go. Otherwise, every murder in PG county and DC would be solved via satellite video. Zoom in and pull the killers face off of that video and put it on News4. COME ON!!!!


----------



## 88stringslouie

Check out this link:

http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993
Law enforcement DOES use satellite video surveillance, it's a fact.

What Long did is on videotape.  You can take that to the bank.  This tape should be made available to the Mattia's and a civil court as evidence.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*No other story but Long's story*



			
				JesseJames said:
			
		

> Long shot other dogs to protect himself, and one to protect an animal control officer from what I have heard... from very reliable sources.
> 
> That "good ole boy network" is the one that terminates someone's employment to satisfy some other "good ole boy" regardless of the right and wrong of it. The law says that as long as the cop was protecting himself from the attack of Max, he is in the right.
> 
> Yet you would have Long fired, even though it is point blank illegal? That is a "good ole boy" standard if I ever saw one. Same as changing hiring standards to make sure that the right new people are hired, to satisfy a changing Charles Co. -- that is "good ole boy" if I ever saw one.
> 
> Keep the same standards and let those that are qualified step up and get hired... those who can't, regardless of who wants to see them on the street, are unqualified, and - sorry about your luck, background, ability to pass the required tests - you ain't working here. It doesn't matter how much Charles Co. is changing. No... there is no "good ole boy" program at work yet, but I gather you are implying that we get to look forward to those standards? The Department will go to blazes in hurry, ripe with all the scandal that comes with hiring poorly qualified applicants just to please certain members of the public. And every cop, whether right or wrong, who defends himself and offends the "changing group" will be *terminated*? Regardless of the legality of the affair? Are you for real?
> 
> There is NO OTHER PROOF AVAILABLE BUT LONG'S STORY (for now). Oh and the fact that that choker collar... isn't attached to the tether at all. Neither end... if Max was tied, using the choker, one end would still be attached. Proof that Max, if he was wearing that choker as the Mattias said, then Max wasn't tied up.
> 
> We are Americans (I am presuming) and American Justice says *innocent until PROVEN guilty*... without proof, Long goes free and we must stand by that. If Max was laying there and Long did just go up and shoot him (God only knows WHY a cop would subject himself to the questions the Sheriff's Department would have for him), but if he did... termination is the least of his problems, along with the lawsuits. I agree PUNISH him then. I will stand with the crowd in front of the gallows. Most of us would want that, if Long snuck up on Max and just started blasting him. But most of us see the ridiculousness of that scenario.
> 
> Oh and there is no satellite dedicated to the Mattia residence to video tape the goings on in their back yard. The one that was had to be re-fitted to provide better cell phone service in Hughesville. So... the video ain't EVER going to be available. Let that one go. Otherwise, every murder in PG county and DC would be solved via satellite video. Zoom in and pull the killers face off of that video and put it on News4. COME ON!!!!



Let's just get the guy to trial.  I say he took the collar off the tether after he shot the dog.  I say he probably tried to get to the side window or door and the dog probably did bite him.  I say he then got pissed off and shot Max to death.  Of course it's only my opinion.  The "inside apologists" are the ones with all the "inside information" and all the "facts".


----------



## Lenny

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Check out this link:
> 
> http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993
> Law enforcement DOES use satellite video surveillance, it's a fact.
> 
> What Long did is on videotape.  You can take that to the bank.  This tape should be made available to the Mattia's and a civil court as evidence.




You are JPC Sr. aren't you?


----------



## sparkyaclown

JesseJames said:
			
		

> There is NO OTHER PROOF AVAILABLE BUT LONG'S STORY (for now). Oh and the fact that that choker collar... isn't attached to the tether at all. Neither end... if Max was tied, using the choker, one end would still be attached. Proof that Max, if he was wearing that choker as the Mattias said, then Max wasn't tied up.



Well being a dog owner I have never known a dog that wasn't tied up to stay put in the backyard 2 feet from the door while a stranger noses around their territory.  If that dog was not tied up and was that aggressive he would have been on that officer the second he stepped into the backyard if not sooner.  The photos showing the choke collar not attached look staged to me.  Sorry, but if wasn't tied up that shooting would have taken place much farther away from the tether itself.  Also your "good ole boy" standard is probably what is shielding this officer.  From what I have heard, no photos of the actual bite were taken.  While they were not allowed to see or talk to the officer, the EMT personnel confided to the Mattaias' that the officer only required a bandaid.


----------



## SoMDMama82

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Check out this link:
> 
> http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993
> Law enforcement DOES use satellite video surveillance, it's a fact.
> 
> What Long did is on videotape.  You can take that to the bank.  This tape should be made available to the Mattia's and a civil court as evidence.



Why haven't they used the satellites to find that little British girl who disappeared out of her hotel, or that Holloway girl, or all the other missing children/people out there?  I would be furious if, the first time I've heard of them using this type of technology to investigate a dog being shot.

Now, before I get all the red, I'm an animal lover, and I have been watching this thread.  I am sorry that the Matia's have lost their dog.  It's very sad & unfortunate.  But I have kept my .02 out of it, because people here seem to take things to the extremes (on both sides)!  I've been waiting for someone to assume Long started out as a young child, using a magnifying glass to burn up insects, then he moved on to torturing rodents, then small kittens, now he's after the dogs...next might be humans!!!   With the FACTS given, I think, at most, Long may have made a MISTAKE.  Could have been because he had been there before, and knew Max was a friendly dog...a lot of dogs act differently when the owners aren't around (when my dog was being kennel trained, my sister (who hasn't lived in the house since the dog moved in, and the dog didn't really know her), came into the house while we were not home to get mail or something when we were gone.  My sister told me that my dog, who wouldn't under normal circumstances, wouldn't hurt a fly, was growling & barking at her with her hair standing up!  Scarred my sister to death, even though she was in her kennel.  Made me feel good though that I knew she wouldn't let burglars in the house.

My .02 cents is, maybe both Max and Long were just doing their jobs, which just happened to collide with each other.  Long won't come out and say anything, because, from the looks for this forum, anything short of him loosing his job would not satisfy the public.  Fact is, all they have is Long's story...Max's not speaking.  So, even if Long did do it maliciously, it's his word against a dead dogs.  It's a very sad story, but I don't think anything will "fix" it.


----------



## toogie

SoMDMama82 said:
			
		

> My .02 cents is, maybe both Max and Long were just doing their jobs, which just happened to collide with each other.  Long won't come out and say anything, because, from the looks for this forum, anything short of him loosing his job would not satisfy the public.  Fact is, all they have is Long's story...Max's not speaking.  So, even if Long did do it maliciously, it's his word against a dead dogs.  It's a very sad story, but I don't think anything will "fix" it.



My .02 is that I cant believe there have been 45 pages on this forum dedicated to a dead dog. I have dogs, I like em a lot. They are part of the family.... There are plenty of dogs in the animal shelter, they can get another one. And we all know that according to Hollywood, all dogs go to heaven, so he is better of anyway...


----------



## pingrr

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Check out this link:
> 
> http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993
> Law enforcement DOES use satellite video surveillance, it's a fact.
> 
> What Long did is on videotape.  You can take that to the bank.  This tape should be made available to the Mattia's and a civil court as evidence.




are you out of your mind.  Or have you just watched to many CIA movues.  They do not have satalite video of this.  True they can record video from the satalites.  The satalites are only in certain places and viewing certain things.  They don't have countinuous video of everything that is going on outside.


----------



## calamity jane

There was a statement in one of the news stories that Long was treated and released from Civista. I can find it again if I have time. 
I grew up with several dogs on our farm (2 german shepherds) and I can tell you that a loose dog does not always charge out to meet someone when they drive up. One of our dogs used to sneak around the sides of the house and try to bite people when they were'nt looking. So, yes, a loose dog could have tried to attack someone after they got around to the back of the house.
A choke chain can be broken by a dog if he's tied out on it. If he was connected to that lead, a 125 lb. dog definitely could break that choke collar if he was bent on getting at someone. Seen it done. It would testify to the ferociousness of the attack. On a  side note, it is a very bad idea to leave a dog unattended while tied out in a choke collar. They are for training and can inflict serious injury or even death to a dog. Not something you would do to a member of your family.


----------



## 88stringslouie

SoMDMama82 said:
			
		

> Why haven't they used the satellites to find that little British girl who disappeared out of her hotel, or that Holloway girl, or all the other missing children/people out there?  I would be furious if, the first time I've heard of them using this type of technology to investigate a dog being shot.
> 
> Now, before I get all the red, I'm an animal lover, and I have been watching this thread.  I am sorry that the Matia's have lost their dog.  It's very sad & unfortunate.  But I have kept my .02 out of it, because people here seem to take things to the extremes (on both sides)!  I've been waiting for someone to assume Long started out as a young child, using a magnifying glass to burn up insects, then he moved on to torturing rodents, then small kittens, now he's after the dogs...next might be humans!!!   With the FACTS given, I think, at most, Long may have made a MISTAKE.  Could have been because he had been there before, and knew Max was a friendly dog...a lot of dogs act differently when the owners aren't around (when my dog was being kennel trained, my sister (who hasn't lived in the house since the dog moved in, and the dog didn't really know her), came into the house while we were not home to get mail or something when we were gone.  My sister told me that my dog, who wouldn't under normal circumstances, wouldn't hurt a fly, was growling & barking at her with her hair standing up!  Scarred my sister to death, even though she was in her kennel.  Made me feel good though that I knew she wouldn't let burglars in the house.
> 
> My .02 cents is, maybe both Max and Long were just doing their jobs, which just happened to collide with each other.  Long won't come out and say anything, because, from the looks for this forum, anything short of him loosing his job would not satisfy the public.  Fact is, all they have is Long's story...Max's not speaking.  So, even if Long did do it maliciously, it's his word against a dead dogs.  It's a very sad story, but I don't think anything will "fix" it.



This is certainly a rational explanation.  I think Long is a very lucky man.  To have this type of shielding and absolute disregard for the outrage from the
community, I find it putrid that they will not come forward and discuss this.

About the satellite surveillance...If the National Humane Society got involved or a pro bono lawyer/dog lover, you bet they will get that video.  With that video, they would nail Mr. Long to the wall.

Your explanation is elloquent and well thought out.  There are many laws on the books about a dog being the property of an individual.  They have the right to defend their property.  There was a case in Hawaii where a cop shot a dog and the courts ruled that the dog was property of the landowner and that the officer was at fault.  The University of Michigan Law School has done quite a bit of study on this very subject.  

Yes, this looks staged.  Frankly, I'm very surprised that Mr. Coffey has not made a public statement, as this is a horrid reflection back to administration whose canine officers rely on "man's best friend" to perform many duties, including protecting officers, and these officers are very attached to these courageous dogs.

As in all organizations, there is a majority of the officers that are excellent.  
Most are very personable, very respectful, experts at what they do, and deserve a humongous raise.  
Sadly, this case is an absolute atrocity.  Not knowing what happened to the other two dogs that were shot (and there are people that are obviously explaining these "off the record" who are people in "the know"), this incident has set off a furor in the animal lover community.  My dogs are my family.  If anyone shot my dog on my property while it was chained up (of course my dog lives in the house with the rest of my family), I would shoot to kill and defend my property and my family.  

This being said, you know my position.  I'm a 2nd amendment guy who believes in a clean and forthright police force.  The police have an incredibly difficult job dealing with the hoodlums that are now in our community.  My hat is off to all of them that serve to protect us.


----------



## 88stringslouie

Dawn,

The link does work.  You'll need to run the mouse out through the entire line, including the stuff that is not a hyperlink.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This is certainly a rational explanation.  I think Long is a very lucky man.  To have this type of shielding and absolute disregard for the outrage from the
> community, I find it putrid that they will not come forward and discuss this.
> 
> About the satellite surveillance...If the National Humane Society got involved or a pro bono lawyer/dog lover, you bet they will get that video.  With that video, they would nail Mr. Long to the wall.
> 
> Your explanation is elloquent and well thought out.  There are many laws on the books about a dog being the property of an individual.  They have the right to defend their property.  There was a case in Hawaii where a cop shot a dog and the courts ruled that the dog was property of the landowner and that the officer was at fault.  The University of Michigan Law School has done quite a bit of study on this very subject.
> 
> Yes, this looks staged.  Frankly, I'm very surprised that Mr. Coffey has not made a public statement, as this is a horrid reflection back to administration whose canine officers rely on "man's best friend" to perform many duties, including protecting officers, and these officers are very attached to these courageous dogs.
> 
> As in all organizations, there is a majority of the officers that are excellent.
> Most are very personable, very respectful, experts at what they do, and deserve a humongous raise.
> Sadly, this case is an absolute atrocity.  Not knowing what happened to the other two dogs that were shot (and there are people that are obviously explaining these "off the record" who are people in "the know"), this incident has set off a furor in the animal lover community.  My dogs are my family.  If anyone shot my dog on my property while it was chained up (of course my dog lives in the house with the rest of my family), I would shoot to kill and defend my property and my family.
> 
> This being said, you know my position.  I'm a 2nd amendment guy who believes in a clean and forthright police force.  The police have an incredibly difficult job dealing with the hoodlums that are now in our community.  My hat is off to all of them that serve to protect us.


 Coffey has made a public statement about this incident.  He stated the officer was defending himself and unfortunately had to put the dog down to protect himself.  This by the way is allowed under Maryland law, which is the only law applicable in this case.  There is no federal statute which would apply.


----------



## 88stringslouie

Where did he make a statement?
Is it in the newspaper?

If so, what day?
Thanks


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Coffey has made a public statement about this incident.  He stated the officer was defending himself and unfortunately had to put the dog down to protect himself.  This by the way is allowed under Maryland law, which is the only law applicable in this case.  There is no federal statute which would apply.




I missed that statement as well, and when I called the sheriffs office last week and inquired of when a statement would be made, they had no definite answer, so when did Coffey make the statement?


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Coffey has made a public statement about this incident.  He stated the officer was defending himself and unfortunately had to put the dog down to protect himself.  This by the way is allowed under Maryland law, which is the only law applicable in this case.  There is no federal statute which would apply.



Tom,


waiting for answer.......


----------



## Booboo3604

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Dawn,
> 
> The link does work.  You'll need to run the mouse out through the entire line, including the stuff that is not a hyperlink.




http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy20and20Human20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993

This link works, I had to take the %'s out of the previously posted link.


----------



## SoMDMama82

> Charles County officer ... 06-12-2007 01:53 PM you stink



That's a good one!!!


----------



## tom88

nobody cares about you opinion on this matter you had your mind made up from day one. i will continue to give you red for the rest of my time here on the forum for sheer principal you b*stard

To the coward who gave the above red.  I don't really care much about that although I find if fun to argue with you.  You say I had my mind made up?  What about you?  At least if I am "giving Karma" I sign it.  Step up, I am assuming your a woman, but "man up about it".


----------



## pingrr

Charles County officer ... 06-12-2007 11:34 AM IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  


I am not an idiot.  Check out my signature if you don't believe me.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> For Long to say (through whom, I have no idea) that Max "bit him" along the side of the house is an incredibly stupid excuse and no defense whatsoever.  Personally, I've heard nothing from Long.  It's only been from the spokesman from the Sheriff's Dept. Max and any other dog (that was loose) would have met him at the front of the house before he got out of his car (or truck, or whatever he was driving).  No one, and I mean no one can convince me otherwise.
> The only thing that will satisfy me is a trial with a competent trial attorney that doesn't live is Chucky County.
> What satellites?  There are plenty of surveillance satellites, that with the right amount of money, would present the evidence that we need.  This has stink written all over it.  The apologists should wait until Long surfaces and makes a public statement.  Once he is found innocent in a court of law, then I'll apologize.
> 
> We are airing our emotional opinions.  We are allowed to do that.  Why defend a guy that can't come out and say for himself as to why he shot the muzzle off Max, or why he had to shoot Max 7 times?  Or, why he has shot two other dogs?  I've seen someone explain why he killed two other dogs.  I'm interested as to how this "person from the ether" knows so much about Mr. Long's "incidents" with the other two dogs.
> 
> I'll answer your question.  Yes, this cop should have let Max bite him while he got his mace out and sprayed it in Max's face.  This cop knew Max, and the cop also knows as we all know that he's not telling the truth about the events that led up to him shooting Max to death, using a ridiculous amount of fire power to turn him into mince meat.  Did Max have any other incidents of biting and mauling other policemen?  Have other policemen visited the house?  Mr. Long is the only one that knows the truth about the incident.
> Unless there is a trial, you'll never prove his innocence to me.
> 
> If you are a policeman, I'm sure you are speaking off the record.  If any of these other apologists are policemen, I am sure that they are speaking off the record as well.  Therefore, you know no more information than anyone else on this board, so your opinion means no more than mine or anyone else's.


So what if the dog was chained up? What if Long did not realize this until it was too late? What if? What if? What if? It doesn't matter if the dog was tied up or not. The fact is Long is allowed to defend himself.


----------



## camily

JesseJames said:
			
		

> Dawn... I believe that it has been demonstrated here that it is VERY LIKELY illegal for the Sheriff to punish Long. The laws are in place saying that if a loose dog attacks someone who is legally somewhere (and Long was because that is his job) *LONG WAS NOT TRESPASSING*.
> If you do not like the laws as they have been written, vote to change them. Surely you do not condone the breaking of a law to seek satisfaction/revenge? I hope that you wouldn't require Sheriff Coffey to step outside of the boundaries we pay him to enforce so the Mattia family and other's get their "pound of flesh." It would seem to me that would be hypocritical as well as illegal.


Dawn is a


----------



## camily

pingrr said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 06-12-2007 11:34 AM IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I am not an idiot.  Check out my signature if you don't believe me.


teeheehee


----------



## Wileeone

I have read every post on all 49 pages.  The entire situation makes me nauseous, I can not even imagine.  I rescued my german shepherd when she was two years old.  She was skinny, ignored and unsocialized.  She is my buddy.  I do not leave her out when I am not home, that is my choice.  I wish peace to Max, the Mattia family, and officer Long.


----------



## tom88

haha....ewwww all the loosers gave me red, but they still didn't sign it.  Like it matters to me if you tree huggers make my thing red or green?  I just want you to man up and tell me who I am arguing with!  You bunch of girls...lol


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> Dawn is a



Camily, that was very nice of you!  Thank you.


----------



## tom88

red karma 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just got red karma that said I should have signed my karma this means war! I am assuming it is you that left that red karma for me, and I was going to give you red karma back, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt before giving you red -- I have given it to you once before I a signed my name when I did! at least I think it was to you -- it may have been to frank -- but one of you I did it too and I signed my name when I did. I have absoultely no problem speaking my opinion as has been noted -- so if you think it is me -- think twice because I will announce its me giving it to you!

I received the above message from Dawn.  ARE YOU SERIOUS.  GIVE ME ALL THE RED KARMA YOU WANT YOU LOOSER!  GET A LIFE!  YOU ARE EITHER 10 YEARS OLD, OR THE MOST PATHETIC PERSON I HAVE EVER RUN INTO.  HAHAHAHHAH


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> red karma
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I just got red karma that said I should have signed my karma this means war! I am assuming it is you that left that red karma for me, and I was going to give you red karma back, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt before giving you red -- I have given it to you once before I a signed my name when I did! at least I think it was to you -- it may have been to frank -- but one of you I did it too and I signed my name when I did. I have absoultely no problem speaking my opinion as has been noted -- so if you think it is me -- think twice because I will announce its me giving it to you!
> 
> I received the above message from Dawn.  ARE YOU SERIOUS.  GIVE ME ALL THE RED KARMA YOU WANT YOU LOOSER!  GET A LIFE!  YOU ARE EITHER 10 YEARS OLD, OR THE MOST PATHETIC PERSON I HAVE EVER RUN INTO.  HAHAHAHHAH




No I would call it giving you respect before giving you karma -- sorry what was I thinking.


----------



## RoseRed

tom88 said:
			
		

> red karma
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I just got red karma that said I should have signed my karma this means war! I am assuming it is you that left that red karma for me, and I was going to give you red karma back, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt before giving you red -- I have given it to you once before I a signed my name when I did! at least I think it was to you -- it may have been to frank -- but one of you I did it too and I signed my name when I did. I have absoultely no problem speaking my opinion as has been noted -- so if you think it is me -- think twice because I will announce its me giving it to you!
> 
> I received the above message from Dawn.  ARE YOU SERIOUS.  GIVE ME ALL THE RED KARMA YOU WANT YOU LOOSER!  GET A LIFE!  YOU ARE EITHER 10 YEARS OLD, OR THE MOST PATHETIC PERSON I HAVE EVER RUN INTO.  HAHAHAHHAH



Do you have high blood pressure?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> No I would call it giving you respect before giving you karma -- sorry what was I thinking.


 I don't care if you give me Karma Dawn..lol it's just little dots..some are green some are red...I have no preference.  But really if this is so important to you that you are going to declare haha.."war"..then maybe you should see someone..haha...or maybe you should get your mommies permission before you play on the internet..lmao.


----------



## tom88

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Do you have high blood pressure?


 No rose..but thats funny..lol


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't care if you give me Karma Dawn..lol it's just little dots..some are green some are red...I have no preference.  But really if this is so important to you that you are going to declare haha.."war"..then maybe you should see someone..haha...or maybe you should get your mommies permission before you play on the internet..lmao.




I am delaring "war"  please tell me where you see that????? grow up tom!  you have serious issues.   I would say that maybe you do have preference and I think you do care, because you have brought the subject up, number 1 and number two you have red karma'd me until I think you are finshed for the day!  

I have no problem speaking my mind.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> I am delaring "war"  please tell me where you see that????? grow up tom!  you have serious issues.   I would say that maybe you do have preference and I think you do care, because you have brought the subject up, number 1 and number two you have red karma'd me until I think you are finshed for the day!
> 
> I have no problem speaking my mind.


 Look at your first sentence to me in my original quote dawn!  Here it is " I just got red karma that said I should have signed my karma this means war!"  You crack me up.  You take this stuff way too seriously!  Lighten up francis!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Look at your first sentence to me in my original quote dawn!  Here it is " I just got red karma that said I should have signed my karma this means war!"  You crack me up.  You take this stuff way too seriously!  Lighten up francis!



Charles County officer ... 06-12-2007 09:28 PM You should have signed your karma, coward. This is war.  

This is the karma i received and I thought it was from you!


----------



## FrankBama1234

Kill this thread already. Why don't we start a new  one: "Karma, this time it's for real!"
This thread is just about used up. Kill it already, or until the satelite videos come in of the incident. RIP Max. RIP Thread.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Kill this thread already. Why don't we start a new  one: "Karma, this time it's for real!"
> This thread is just about used up. Kill it already, or until the satelite videos come in of the incident. RIP Max. RIP Thread.



Let's kill the thread after Long and Company go to civil trial.
Let's kill the thread after all the forensic evidence is presented and Mr. Long is found not guilty.

Until then, why not keep complaining that has not yet been rendered?


----------



## Poohhunny1605

I think this is one of the most sad stories I have every heard.  I did see a sign that said "Charles County Police Killed MY Dog" in the front yard of thier house.  That is so sad, regardless if the dog was an attack dog or whatever, if the dog was chained up, the officer had no right to be in that dogs territory!!! Officers know better, obviously he was one of the ones that get screwed up when becoming a cop! 

I don't hate on cops! I just think some of them are sick and twisted and think they can get away with whatever they want.  In this case, I am sad because it was a dog, not like a human was gunning you down!


----------



## PrchJrkr

Poohhunny1605 said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the most sad stories I have every heard.  I did see a sign that said "Charles County Police Killed MY Dog" in the front yard of thier house.  That is so sad, regardless if the dog was an attack dog or whatever, if the dog was chained up, the officer had no right to be in that dogs territory!!! Officers know better, obviously he was one of the ones that get screwed up when becoming a cop!
> 
> I don't hate on cops! I just think some of them are sick and twisted and think they can get away with whatever they want.  In this case, I am sad because it was a dog, not like a human was gunning you down!



 Welcome to the forums. The officer had every right to be there.


----------



## Poohhunny1605

I feel awful for the people who had to deal with this loss.  I think that the cop took it overboard and didn't have to do what he did.  He had the right to be there for check for the warrant, but where does it say it was ok to shoot a dog..??

Hello..thank you for welcoming me!   
If anyone can explain this Karma thing to me, could you please?


----------



## lovinmaryland

Poohhunny1605 said:
			
		

> I feel awful for the people who had to deal with this loss.  I think that the cop took it overboard and didn't have to do what he did.  He had the right to be there for check for the warrant, but where does it say it was ok to shoot a dog..??
> 
> Hello..thank you for welcoming me!
> If anyone can explain this Karma thing to me, could you please?



Welcome  , click on user CP at the top of your screen that will let you see your karma messages

click on this to for all about karma
http://forums.somd.com/faq.php?faq=karma_main


----------



## Poohhunny1605

Thank you


----------



## lovinmaryland

your welcome


----------



## Dork

lovinmaryland said:
			
		

> your welcome



Why are we still talking about this?  Let's move on.  Hey, maybe we can get Sockgirl to tell us about her sock collection.  Anything!


----------



## dawn

Dork said:
			
		

> Why are we still talking about this?  Let's move on.  Hey, maybe we can get Sockgirl to tell us about her sock collection.  Anything!




Ummm, maybe because no response from the sherriffs office keeps us talking about it.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Coffey has made a public statement about this incident.  He stated the officer was defending himself and unfortunately had to put the dog down to protect himself.  This by the way is allowed under Maryland law, which is the only law applicable in this case.  There is no federal statute which would apply.




Tom, when did Coffey make a public statment?


----------



## Dork

dawn said:
			
		

> Tom, when did Coffey make a public statment?



Oh, no.  Now look what I did.      I got 'em started back up.


----------



## tom88

Coffey made a statement the day after the event.  Pay attention Dawn you tard!  (that was not in reference to you dork, I just borrowed it because I saw your thread)  You are a stupid woman dawn.  eeeewww now bring on the red...lmao


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Coffey made a statement the day after the event.  Pay attention Dawn you tard!  (that was not in reference to you dork, I just borrowed it because I saw your thread)  You are a stupid woman dawn.  eeeewww now bring on the red...lmao




I have been reading this thread from day one, and have been so tempted to put in my 2 cent, but haven't until now.  

I have to quote one other post and I am sorry that I dont recall who posted it, but


You sir are an idiot.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> I have been reading this thread from day one, and have been so tempted to put in my 2 cent, but haven't until now.
> 
> I have to quote one other post and I am sorry that I dont recall who posted it, but
> 
> 
> You sir are an idiot.


 Not really, I am quite smart.  But I appreciate your input.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Not really, I am quite smart.  But I appreciate your input.




matter of opinion!


----------



## FrankBama1234

Poohhunny1605 said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the most sad stories I have every heard.  I did see a sign that said "Charles County Police Killed MY Dog" in the front yard of thier house.  That is so sad, regardless if the dog was an attack dog or whatever, if the dog was chained up, the officer had no right to be in that dogs territory!!! Officers know better, obviously he was one of the ones that get screwed up when becoming a cop!
> 
> I don't hate on cops! I just think some of them are sick and twisted and think they can get away with whatever they want.  In this case, I am sad because it was a dog, not like a human was gunning you down!



OK, this is the last time I am going to ask this. I have asked and asked, and none of you Max supporters will answer. Should Long have let the dog bite and maul him and not defend himself?? Why won't you morons answer the question?? The blame lies with the Mattia's sh*&bag son. He lied about where he lived and he wasn't paying his freaking child support. There is your suspect. We have "what if'ed" this thing to death. So what if the dog was chained. What if Long didn't see the dog until it was too late? What if Long was within reach of the dog on the chain? No one can answer these questions because none of us were there. (except maybe Dawn, because she has ESP). It's sad that the dog had to die protecting his property, but Long had every RIGHT to be there, as the dog had every right to protect the Mattia's property. Unfortuneately, someone had to lose and in this case it was the dog. I accept the fact that not all cops are saints, however, I still maintain that Long did not wake up that day with the intent of killing Max or any other dog. A typical case of wrong place at the wrong time. The law allows police to enter private property in the pursuit of their duty. It also allows them (and all citizens) to protect themselves. So again, from what I've seen and read, although tragic, Long was doing his job and protecting himself. Even if the dog only "nipped" at him, or if the treatment merely needed a band-aid, the fact is the dog was aggressive towards him and Long defended himself....thank you, Elvis has left the building!


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Sounds like an OJ Simpson timeline to me*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> Coffey made a statement the day after the event.  Pay attention Dawn you tard!  (that was not in reference to you dork, I just borrowed it because I saw your thread)  You are a stupid woman dawn.  eeeewww now bring on the red...lmao



I am anxious to know where he was quoted or what TV channel that he made it on.
The day that I saw the TV coverage, Montminy was on ABC7 at saying that it was under investigation.  This was on May 18th, Friday at 5:05 p.m.
Max was murdered on May 15th.  So, how in the hell could Coffey had made a statement regarding Max's murder on the 16th (the day after the event), but 
Montminy said that the murder was under investigation on May 18th?  
So I ask again, what did Coffey say and where was it quoted or covered?


----------



## 88stringslouie

dmh said:
			
		

> I have been reading this thread from day one, and have been so tempted to put in my 2 cent, but haven't until now.
> 
> I have to quote one other post and I am sorry that I dont recall who posted it, but
> 
> 
> You sir are an idiot.



Don't waste your time calling this apologist "sir".


----------



## Pandora

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> OK, this is the last time I am going to ask this. I have asked and asked, and none of you Max supporters will answer. Should Long have let the dog bite and maul him and not defend himself?? Why won't you morons answer the question?? The blame lies with the Mattia's sh*&bag son. He lied about where he lived and he wasn't paying his freaking child support. There is your suspect. We have "what if'ed" this thing to death. So what if the dog was chained. What if Long didn't see the dog until it was too late? What if Long was within reach of the dog on the chain? No one can answer these questions because none of us were there. (except maybe Dawn, because she has ESP). It's sad that the dog had to die protecting his property, but Long had every RIGHT to be there, as the dog had every right to protect the Mattia's property. Unfortuneately, someone had to lose and in this case it was the dog. I accept the fact that not all cops are saints, however, I still maintain that Long did not wake up that day with the intent of killing Max or any other dog. A typical case of wrong place at the wrong time. The law allows police to enter private property in the pursuit of their duty. It also allows them (and all citizens) to protect themselves. So again, from what I've seen and read, although tragic, Long was doing his job and protecting himself. Even if the dog only "nipped" at him, or if the treatment merely needed a band-aid, the fact is the dog was aggressive towards him and Long defended himself....thank you, Elvis has left the building!


 

I go door to door to people’s residence often, and I have had to take steps back slowly many of times after being approached by an aggressive dog(s).  A vicious cat once attacked me as I stood in the foyer of a person’s residence.  

But I have to say, Max is the first damn dog I have ever known to become free from his leash and to stay close by.  Don’t you find that odd in the least that this dog was shot next to his leash?

Do I believe Officer Long woke up that day and said “I think I kill somebody’s family pet.”  NO

Did Officer Long have a right to check that residence? YES 

I do believe Officer Long used poor judgment when assessing the area, crossing the path of the dog after knowing he had two other prior   incidence's in which he had to fatally shot a dog, and that Officer Long is afraid of dogs.  The department owes the family an answer and a picture of this so-called wound.  

You can beat this thread into the ground.  The final decision will be in a court of law.  Maybe Officer Long should spend some time on the K-9 squad to get familiar with animals.

I would also be interesting in knowing the number of times other officers have had to kill a dog within the same time frame.


----------



## spike2763

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> OK, this is the last time I am going to ask this. I have asked and asked, . Should Long have let the dog bite and maul him and not defend himself??
> The answer is obviously NO, the officer should be allowed to defend himself, that's why nobody ever responded to your question. The real problem is.... was he justified in his response of shooting the dog?


----------



## 88stringslouie

Pandora said:
			
		

> I go door to door to people’s residence often, and I have had to take steps back slowly many of times after being approached by an aggressive dog(s).  A vicious cat once attacked me as I stood in the foyer of a person’s residence.
> 
> But I have to say, Max is the first damn dog I have ever known to become free from his leash and to stay close by.  Don’t you find that odd in the least that this dog was shot next to his leash?
> 
> Do I believe Officer Long woke up that day and said “I think I kill somebody’s family pet.”  NO
> 
> Did Officer Long have a right to check that residence? YES
> 
> I do believe Officer Long used poor judgment when assessing the area, crossing the path of the dog after knowing he had two other prior   incidence's in which he had to fatally shot a dog, and that Officer Long is afraid of dogs.  The department owes the family an answer and a picture of this so-called wound.
> 
> You can beat this thread into the ground.  The final decision will be in a court of law.  Maybe Officer Long should spend some time on the K-9 squad to get familiar with animals.
> 
> I would also be interesting in knowing the number of times other officers have had to kill a dog within the same time frame.



Good questions.  I'm waiting on Mr. Tom88 answering my question as to  how Mr. Coffey made a statement the day after the event (May 16) while yet Mr. Montminy said that the department was investigating.

To Mr. SMCOP:  I was not directing the "sir" comment to you.  Unless you are both SMCOP and TOM88.

I think that Mr. Long needs to work a year at the Humane Society and write on the chalkboard 1,000 times "I will not shoot my 4th dog".

The K-9 officer sounds good.  He better watch his back though.  I bet there are some pretty pissed off canines and canine officers at this point (whether or not on CCSD), knowing there's a trigger happy police officer that has blown away 3 dogs, one at least being under suspicious circumstances.

At least the Tennessee Highway Patrol had the balls to reassign this guy after blowing away a family pet:

http://www.putnampit.com/patton/mail.htm

I found several HUNDRED blogsites of pissed-off people.  Pissed off police officers.  They have it right.  Boycott the damned county.  I guess that we aren't the only knuckle-dragging idiots that believe that the department should pay through the nose over this.  Allowing this guy to remain after his THIRD fricking dog shooting.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> OK, this is the last time I am going to ask this. I have asked and asked, and none of you Max supporters will answer. Should Long have let the dog bite and maul him and not defend himself?? Why won't you morons answer the question?? The blame lies with the Mattia's sh*&bag son. He lied about where he lived and he wasn't paying his freaking child support. There is your suspect. We have "what if'ed" this thing to death. So what if the dog was chained. What if Long didn't see the dog until it was too late? What if Long was within reach of the dog on the chain? No one can answer these questions because none of us were there. (except maybe Dawn, because she has ESP). It's sad that the dog had to die protecting his property, but Long had every RIGHT to be there, as the dog had every right to protect the Mattia's property. Unfortuneately, someone had to lose and in this case it was the dog. I accept the fact that not all cops are saints, however, I still maintain that Long did not wake up that day with the intent of killing Max or any other dog. A typical case of wrong place at the wrong time. The law allows police to enter private property in the pursuit of their duty. It also allows them (and all citizens) to protect themselves. So again, from what I've seen and read, although tragic, Long was doing his job and protecting himself. Even if the dog only "nipped" at him, or if the treatment merely needed a band-aid, the fact is the dog was aggressive towards him and Long defended himself....thank you, Elvis has left the building!



1)  You don't know if the dog was aggressive.  You are believing Long.  There    is no evidence to lay a basis tobelieve Long's story.
2)  Yes, Long has a right to protect himself.  So do I.  I've been attacked by a dog, but hit him over the back with a large stick.  I didn't blow him ( and 2 others ) away.  He reminds me of thugs that have to use a knife or a gun to throw their weight around.  It's repugnant.
3)  You are obviously under psychotic medication.  You do not know that the dog was aggressive toward him UNLESS you were there.  Were you?  Stupid people believe someone that has shot 3 dogs and has said that they were being attacked by a dog and thus blew the dog away.***Fool me once, 
shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me three times, why hell, why not one more time?  
4)  Obviously, back slapping good old boys are covering this guy's ARSE.

Assumptions by you or the believing someone that has repeatedly killed a person's property by the overuse of firepower is a sad sign of brainwashing.


----------



## FireBrand

what is the bottom line here ?
the bottom line is DON'T HOST A FUGATIVE !!


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> 1)  You don't know if the dog was aggressive.  You are believing Long.  There    is no evidence to lay a basis tobelieve Long's story.
> 2)  Yes, Long has a right to protect himself.  So do I.  I've been attacked by a dog, but hit him over the back with a large stick.  I didn't blow him ( and 2 others ) away.  He reminds me of thugs that have to use a knife or a gun to throw their weight around.  It's repugnant.
> 3)  You are obviously under psychotic medication.  You do not know that the dog was aggressive toward him UNLESS you were there.  Were you?  Stupid people believe someone that has shot 3 dogs and has said that they were being attacked by a dog and thus blew the dog away.***Fool me once,
> shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me three times, why hell, why not one more time?
> 4)  Obviously, back slapping good old boys are covering this guy's ARSE.
> 
> Assumptions by you or the believing someone that has repeatedly killed a person's property by the overuse of firepower is a sad sign of brainwashing.


 You dumazz!  We don't know the dog was aggressive?????  What do you think it was a passive dog which bit Long?  Are the ambulance crew, the Sheriff's Office, the medical doctors all conspiring to protect Long?  You are a jack azz!  This HERO was doing his job and was bit by a dog!  It is tragic the dog was killed in the process, but it is fortunate the officer was not hurt any further.  Police are forced to kill animals all the time.  Most times it is for humanitarian reasons.  Nobody on this thread has stated when or why Long allegedly killed two other animals, all of you minions are assuming it was for nefarious purposes.


----------



## jetmonkey

Thank goodness somebody *finally* bumped this thread! *phew*


----------



## Ken King

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> Thank goodness somebody *finally* bumped this thread! *phew*


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> You dumazz!  We don't know the dog was aggressive?????  What do you think it was a passive dog which bit Long?  Are the ambulance crew, the Sheriff's Office, the medical doctors all conspiring to protect Long?  You are a jack azz!  This HERO was doing his job and was bit by a dog!  It is tragic the dog was killed in the process, but it is fortunate the officer was not hurt any further.  Police are forced to kill animals all the time.  Most times it is for humanitarian reasons.  Nobody on this thread has stated when or why Long allegedly killed two other animals, all of you minions are assuming it was for nefarious purposes.



Dont think the name calling is necessary.  No we dont know that Max was aggressive, we have NO PROOF that long was scratched.  You ask are the ambulance crew, the sherriffs office and the medical doctors consipiring, well considering that we have no proof from the sherriffs office nor the medical doctors, we would say that the sherriffs office is conspiring to cover their behinds.  and if you remember correctly it was mentioned that off the record the amublance crew did indicate that long needed nothing short of a band aid.

And maybe if you watch the news you will know that ABC, CBS and Fox all indicated that THE SHERRIFFS OFFICE advised that Long WAS INDEED involved in two other shootings.  Pay attention (to quote you) You dumazz!


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Dont think the name calling is necessary.  No we dont know that Max was aggressive, we have NO PROOF that long was scratched.  You ask are the ambulance crew, the sherriffs office and the medical doctors consipiring, well considering that we have no proof from the sherriffs office nor the medical doctors, we would say that the sherriffs office is conspiring to cover their behinds.  and if you remember correctly it was mentioned that off the record the amublance crew did indicate that long needed nothing short of a band aid.
> 
> And maybe if you watch the news you will know that ABC, CBS and Fox all indicated that THE SHERRIFFS OFFICE advised that Long WAS INDEED involved in two other shootings.  Pay attention (to quote you) You dumazz!


 Well if he needed a band aid......... isn't that indicative that the dog was doing something?  I didn't realize he needed to be mauled in order to kill an ANIMAL which was attacking him.  And I am not denying he shot two other dogs...I am asking for the reason he shot them.  Do you know?


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well if he needed a band aid......... isn't that indicative that the dog was doing something?  I didn't realize he needed to be mauled in order to kill an ANIMAL which was attacking him.  And I am not denying he shot two other dogs...I am asking for the reason he shot them.  Do you know?




Well no actually I dont know why he shot the other dogs, but since time has passed and nothing was made of those shootings, I think it would be safe to assume that it was basically whatever happened, only long's story is in the file, so of course whatever would come out now about the prior shootings would just be heresay from longs tales.

and if he needed a band aid, no that is not indicative that the dog did anything, long could have scratched himself purposely.

and there are seveal means that officers have to protect themselves short of a gun.   Mailmen get attacked all the time, you never hear of them shooting a dog, do you?    Just because you have a gun, doesnt give you the right to use it for any just cause.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Well no actually I dont know why he shot the other dogs, but since time has passed and nothing was made of those shootings, I think it would be safe to assume that it was basically whatever happened, only long's story is in the file, so of course whatever would come out now about the prior shootings would just be heresay from longs tales.
> 
> and if he needed a band aid, no that is not indicative that the dog did anything, long could have scratched himself purposely.
> 
> and there are seveal means that officers have to protect themselves short of a gun.   Mailmen get attacked all the time, you never hear of them shooting a dog, do you?    Just because you have a gun, doesnt give you the right to use it for any just cause.


 Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.




You just double talked yourself, do you realize it or do i need to point out the obvious?


----------



## MMDad

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.


From USPS: 





> Following are USPS dog bite statistics from fiscal years 2001 to 2006:
> 
> Year    2001    2002    2003    2004    2005    2006
> Bites  3,158  3,070  3,743  3,429  3,273  3,184


----------



## huntr1

I can't believe this thread is STILL going on.

Kill a person and have a 2 day thread about you.  Kill a dog and have a never ending thread about you.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.






So if mail men dont get bit then why in gods name would you beleive the cop did?


----------



## pingrr

tom88 said:
			
		

> Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.



Are you saying that there has never been an instance of a mailman being attacked by a dog.  I find that very hard to believe.

You seem to stick up for Long an awful lot.

Are you and two secretly butt buddies?


----------



## dmh

huntr1 said:
			
		

> I can't believe this thread is STILL going on.
> 
> Kill a person and have a 2 day thread about you.  Kill a dog and have a never ending thread about you.




animals are defenseless to human a**holes, and people need to speak on behalf of the defenseless.


----------



## tom88

pingrr said:
			
		

> Are you saying that there has never been an instance of a mailman being attacked by a dog.  I find that very hard to believe.
> 
> You seem to stick up for Long an awful lot.
> 
> Are you and two secretly butt buddies?


 Never met the guy, and I bet there are mailmen who have been attacked also, but I doubt the person who said that knows of any.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Never met the guy, and I bet there are mailmen who have been attacked also, but I doubt the person who said that knows of any.




And you know long, personally?


----------



## pixiegirl

*We are the world....*

We are the children....


----------



## tom88

MMDad said:
			
		

> From USPS:


 My point is the tard who said that knows of no mailmen who were bit.  But yet she throws a lot of stuff out that she believes to be factual.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> My point is the tard who said that knows of no mailmen who were bit.  But yet she throws a lot of stuff out that she believes to be factual.



and thank you for thinking you know my gender or just chauvinistic....

My point is, the odds of a mail man getting bit is unequivocally higher than a police officer, and they (mail men) do not carry guns to protect themselves, just mace.   So just by being a police officer, it doesnt give you the right to shoot and kill a dog becuase he barks at you.   Cops have other means to control, such as tazer, mace, baton stick, (common sense, maybe if you see dog chained up) and a gun should be the last resort.


----------



## lovinmaryland

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> We are the children....


----------



## spicy

one time i heard of a mailman that bit a dog. The mailman was chained on his own property, but the dog had a right to be there because it was a dingo.  Who was in the wrong there?


----------



## dmh

pingrr said:
			
		

> Are you saying that there has never been an instance of a mailman being attacked by a dog.  I find that very hard to believe.
> 
> You seem to stick up for Long an awful lot.
> 
> Are you and two secretly butt buddies?


Tom88 you never answered the questions.  mmmmmmmmmmm I am wondering.

lets read between the lines

stick
long
lot
secret 
butt
buddies

By George, I think we have the answer.


----------



## dmh

spicy said:
			
		

> one time i heard of a mailman that bit a dog. The mailman was chained on his own property, but the dog had a right to be there because it was a dingo.  Who was in the wrong there?


----------



## MMDad

spicy said:
			
		

> one time i heard of a mailman that bit a dog. The mailman was chained on his own property, but the dog had a right to be there because it was a dingo.  Who was in the wrong there?



A dingo ate my baby!


----------



## sparkyaclown

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.


Actually I had a dog once who was very protective.  She was very aggressive toward strangers.  One day when I was home I heard her barking and ran up to check on what was going on.  By the time I got to the door she was very docile and covered in mace that the UPS guy had sprayed her with when she came after him.  It's not an urban myth, it does happen however most carriers are equipped to diffuse those situations so it does not occur often.  I believe officers also carry mace/pepper spray yet this officer chose to skip straight to his last option, deadly force. *"So the law is on his side"* That's the dumbest statement yet, of course it's on his side.  He is the law, they are going to go to great lengths to protect their own from prosecution because it would reflect poorly on the department.  I would bet he is not the first officer to be attacked by a dog.  I'd also bet that most other officers in that situation would have either A) not gone back there with the dog in the first place or B) used pepper spray on the animal to try and diffuse it.  Truthfully I'm not convinced the dog was loose in the first place.  I still say an aggressive dog would never have let him get that close to the house.


----------



## Ponytail

MMDad said:
			
		

> A dingo ate my baby!


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> and thank you for thinking you know my gender or just chauvinistic....
> 
> My point is, the odds of a mail man getting bit is unequivocally higher than a police officer, and they (mail men) do not carry guns to protect themselves, just mace.   So just by being a police officer, it doesnt give you the right to shoot and kill a dog becuase he barks at you.   Cops have other means to control, such as tazer, mace, baton stick, (common sense, maybe if you see dog chained up) and a gun should be the last resort.


 Call me chauvinistic but I am correct about your gender.  How many mailman do you know go into people's back yards looking for people with warrants?  I don't know Long, but I do know a lot of police officers and respect what they do.  I do know that you don't care about the police officer who defended himself and that is a shame.  Nice that you would call me chauvinistic and at the same time talk about me being a "butt buddy".  A little homophobic don't you think?


----------



## pingrr

tom88 said:
			
		

> Call me chauvinistic but I am correct about your gender.  How many mailman do you know go into people's back yards looking for people with warrants?  I don't know Long, but I do know a lot of police officers and respect what they do.  I do know that you don't care about the police officer who defended himself and that is a shame.  Nice that you would call me chauvinistic and at the same time talk about me being a "butt buddy".  A little homophobic don't you think?




I have seen Newman get bit by a dog.


----------



## lovinmaryland

If I could make a suggestion...if you all are going to give people red  regarding this thread please do it in this thread.  
I think some of you all maybe giving red in other   threads to people who don't agree w/ your point of view on this topic.
JMO
i have been given these karmas 
You shouldn't have left me unsigned karma accusing me of being a woman hater. You just started a war.
You should have signed your Karma. Now you've made me mad.
I sign my karma and have only given out red maybe three times and it sucks that people think i am giving them red when i am not 

thanks


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it does.  And the way I can prove that is....Has Long been charged with any crime?  NO.  So the law is on his side.  You make a lot of assumptions about Long being truthful or untruthful.  His story is the story I believe.  Name one mailman who has been attacked by a dog.  Give me his name and I will verify it.  You won't be able to do it because it is an urban myth.




Long hasn't been charged with any crime the same as if he was stopped off duty for driving drunk. Cops protect their own... I know plenty of them so don't deny it.

Anyway you look at it, this is an embarassment for the department. 3 dogs in a career?????  Come on now... common sense needs to prevail in this case not blind faith.


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Call me chauvinistic but I am correct about your gender.  How many mailman do you know go into people's back yards looking for people with warrants?  I don't know Long, but I do know a lot of police officers and respect what they do.  I do know that you don't care about the police officer who defended himself and that is a shame.  Nice that you would call me chauvinistic and at the same time talk about me being a "butt buddy".  A little homophobic don't you think?




I don't know any cop who doesn't have the common sense to stay out of reach of a dog on a lead. 

I've stated before.... my dog is occasionally let out on a wireless fence. Does that justify a cop shooting her just because she is barking at him and not allowing him on my property that she is protecting???? There are procedures and they weren't followed in this case... I'd bet good money that the dog was barking long before the underqualified officer made his way into the backyard and invaded his territory.

The warrant could have waited an hour for animal control to stabilize the canine.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Call me chauvinistic but I am correct about your gender.  How many mailman do you know go into people's back yards looking for people with warrants?  I don't know Long, but I do know a lot of police officers and respect what they do.  I do know that you don't care about the police officer who defended himself and that is a shame.  Nice that you would call me chauvinistic and at the same time talk about me being a "butt buddy".  A little homophobic don't you think?



Mail men walk to houses all the time.  but o wait a minute, I guess all dogs are tied up in the back of the house, my fault, so there is no way a mail person would every feel any type of threat by a dog, now would they.   Come on Tom you have got to think before you type.   

My point is that why is it right because a police officer allegedly got bitten, has no marks to show his bite or scratch, has the authority to shot and kill a dog that it tied up when in fact many many delivery people/mail people/meter reader people come in contact every single day and they have no authority to shot and kill a dog.  Because this guy is a cop and killed a dog that allegedly came after him it is ok to do so, but if the fed ex guy comes to my house to deliver a package and shots my dog, will he have just as much amnesty (sp) as the police officer?

I respect the police for what they do, but I dont respect a trigger happy punk that thinks because he has a badge he is above the law.


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Call me chauvinistic but I am correct about your gender.  How many mailman do you know go into people's back yards looking for people with warrants?  I don't know Long, but I do know a lot of police officers and respect what they do.  I do know that you don't care about the police officer who defended himself and that is a shame.  Nice that you would call me chauvinistic and at the same time talk about me being a "butt buddy".  A little homophobic don't you think?



Do you have your head in the sand?  YOU DO NOT KNOW A THING ABOUT THIS CASE!

Except, that Long blew Max away, and gory pictures posted that show he brutally took Max's life.  The burden of proof is on Long and the CCSD.  There has been no evidence presented to show that Long was justified in blowing away Max.  

I'm a little curious about Long living down the street (or had lived) from Mattia's wife or ex-wife.  I'm also curious about all the charges against Mattia and whether or not this motivated Long to be in the mood to use firepower against someone or something.

If you do a little research on the Maryland Judiciary Website, you'll see these curiosities.

And for Mr. Tom88, he's showing his hand, sticking his neck out for this Long cop, spouting about "this aggressive dog", the "attack", etc...

You know damned well that he's somewhere in the "good ole boy" network, trying to convinced logically thinking people that Casper the friendly Ghost is alive and well.

This guy knows nothing, case closed.  Well, unless he was hiding behind a bush observing the vicious attack.

Mr. Tom88, if you know something, why don't you give us a name and a reference to call the CCSD so we can put this thing to rest?

Mr. Coffey did not make a publicized statement "the day after the event" as the timeline doesn't match up.

HOGWASH.


----------



## 88stringslouie

sparkyaclown said:
			
		

> Actually I had a dog once who was very protective.  She was very aggressive toward strangers.  One day when I was home I heard her barking and ran up to check on what was going on.  By the time I got to the door she was very docile and covered in mace that the UPS guy had sprayed her with when she came after him.  It's not an urban myth, it does happen however most carriers are equipped to diffuse those situations so it does not occur often.  I believe officers also carry mace/pepper spray yet this officer chose to skip straight to his last option, deadly force. *"So the law is on his side"* That's the dumbest statement yet, of course it's on his side.  He is the law, they are going to go to great lengths to protect their own from prosecution because it would reflect poorly on the department.  I would bet he is not the first officer to be attacked by a dog.  I'd also bet that most other officers in that situation would have either A) not gone back there with the dog in the first place or B) used pepper spray on the animal to try and diffuse it.  Truthfully I'm not convinced the dog was loose in the first place.  I still say an aggressive dog would never have let him get that close to the house.



Of course not.  In Mr. Tom88's world, the boogie man would have been holding back the ferocious, aggressive Max, until the officer was coming back to peep into the side windows.


----------



## calamity jane

I,m sorry you lost your dog, and friend. Before child support issues a warrant, they mail out several notices. You should have advised them the son was not at your address. Turned in the deadbeat dad that is depriving your gandchildren of their child support. The sherriff would'nt Have had a reason to be at your house.


----------



## u gotta love me

calamity jane said:
			
		

> I,m sorry you lost your dog, and friend. Before child support issues a warrant, they mail out several notices. You should have advised them the son was not at your address. Turned in the deadbeat dad that is depriving your gandchildren of their child support. The sherriff would'nt Have had a reason to be at your house.




um, no I'm sorry unless they have changed the system, which you state above is incorrect.  Five years ago it would be you get your monthly payment stubs, if you don't pay, then you get a Subpoena  via regular mail from the social services division (not the court house), which looks like a regular letter, then when you don't show up at court, they issue a bench warrant.  They do not mail you a letter telling you that you have a warrant, the police just show up.  If you write on the envelope from social services RETURN TO SENDER DOES NOT LIVE AT THIS ADDRESS, guess what, they continue to send the notices to the same address, no one follows up to see if you have a current address, the envelope states (used to state, I don't know how they do it now) DO NOT FORWARD, so you can not forward the mail, and the last time I checked it was against the law (FEDERAL offense) to open someone else's mail.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Do you have your head in the sand?  YOU DO NOT KNOW A THING ABOUT THIS CASE!
> 
> Except, that Long blew Max away, and gory pictures posted that show he brutally took Max's life.  The burden of proof is on Long and the CCSD.  There has been no evidence presented to show that Long was justified in blowing away Max.
> 
> I'm a little curious about Long living down the street (or had lived) from Mattia's wife or ex-wife.  I'm also curious about all the charges against Mattia and whether or not this motivated Long to be in the mood to use firepower against someone or something.
> 
> If you do a little research on the Maryland Judiciary Website, you'll see these curiosities.
> 
> And for Mr. Tom88, he's showing his hand, sticking his neck out for this Long cop, spouting about "this aggressive dog", the "attack", etc...
> 
> You know damned well that he's somewhere in the "good ole boy" network, trying to convinced logically thinking people that Casper the friendly Ghost is alive and well.
> 
> This guy knows nothing, case closed.  Well, unless he was hiding behind a bush observing the vicious attack.
> 
> Mr. Tom88, if you know something, why don't you give us a name and a reference to call the CCSD so we can put this thing to rest?
> 
> Mr. Coffey did not make a publicized statement "the day after the event" as the timeline doesn't match up.
> 
> HOGWASH.


 Here is the deal.  You can cry on this all you want.  I don't care what you think about me.  haha...the Long and short of it is, Long will not get in any trouble because he did nothing wrong.  But if you want to believe it is because he is in a good ole boy system, fine I am ok with that too.  So keep crying and this Hero and the rest of the Hero's who are out there every day searching for people with warrants will go on.  

As for me being part of the Good Ole Boy network, I am from New Jersey.  I have been here for about six years and admire the police for the work they do.  I am a staunch conservative who cares very little about you or your tree hugging friends.


----------



## trilogy

your a p.o.s


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Here is the deal.  You can cry on this all you want.  I don't care what you think about me.  haha...the Long and short of it is, Long will not get in any trouble because he did nothing wrong.  But if you want to believe it is because he is in a good ole boy system, fine I am ok with that too.  So keep crying and this Hero and the rest of the Hero's who are out there every day searching for people with warrants will go on.
> 
> As for me being part of the Good Ole Boy network, I am from New Jersey.  I have been here for about six years and admire the police for the work they do.  I am a staunch conservative who cares very little about you or your tree hugging friends.




If the 90 percent of charles county has their way then Long will pay, one way or another.  You are a fricken idiot, azzhole and all the other names you have called people on this board.   You have admitted that you are a cop and it only completes the puzzle.  Usually people that dont account to much in school, get picked on by their peers and are more or less an outcast, become cops, because if they cant control there own life they have a tendancy to want to control others, and you have proven that point and here.  you make me sick to my stomach with your rude comments, and it it is because of people like you that people like me cant stand the police.


----------



## trilogy

Yah Well!!!!!!!!boo Youre Red


----------



## u gotta love me

trilogy said:
			
		

> your a p.o.s




I second that.


----------



## trilogy

That Hurt You Basterd


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Why dont you just go die or something.


 Aww are you one of the tree hugging friends?


----------



## dmh

TOM 88
 
I think you are a very insensitive person and I think that you will get yours soon enough.  just remember what comes around goes around.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> If the 90 percent of charles county has their way then Long will pay, one way or another.  You are a fricken idiot, azzhole and all the other names you have called people on this board.   You have admitted that you are a cop and it only completes the puzzle.  Usually people that dont account to much in school, get picked on by their peers and are more or less an outcast, become cops, because if they cant control there own life they have a tendancy to want to control others, and you have proven that point and here.  you make me sick to my stomach with your rude comments, and it it is because of people like you that people like me cant stand the police.


 Do you really think 90% of Charles County cares about this?  Please!  90% of Charles County doesn't even know about this.  

It isn't me that makes you hate cops.  It is the crappy upbringing you had from your divorced parents.  The fact that you were promiscuous at an early age, and the fact that police didn't buy into the b.s. you tried to sell them when they gave you whatever punishment they gave you.

I happen to work for the Navy, but I feel strongly about respecting law enforcement officers.  Perhaps if your mommy and daddy taught you something while you were growing up, you would respect them too!


----------



## trilogy

tom ? do you have any living family?


----------



## trilogy

that you still speek to?


----------



## trilogy

are you in touch with them?


----------



## trilogy

tom? are you there?


----------



## trilogy

Tom!! Tom!!! Pull The Trigger!!!! Pull It Now!!!!!!!


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Do you really think 90% of Charles County cares about this?  Please!  90% of Charles County doesn't even know about this.
> 
> It isn't me that makes you hate cops.  It is the crappy upbringing you had from your divorced parents.  The fact that you were promiscuous at an early age, and the fact that police didn't buy into the b.s. you tried to sell them when they gave you whatever punishment they gave you.
> 
> I happen to work for the Navy, but I feel strongly about respecting law enforcement officers.  Perhaps if your mommy and daddy taught you something while you were growing up, you would respect them too!



WOW that is pretty hard mr. tom,  I dont really care for cops that are underhanded -- i respect the ones that are the good cops, but like every profession there are a few bad apples in every tree and long is one of the bad apples.  you take up for him when you know nothing about the situation.  none of us do, no one was there but one person and that one person is not talking.   all evidence points to long being wrong and nothing has been brought to light, other than his word, but pictures are with a thousand words, so therefore the mattias word is clearly the more vocal one at this point.  I am sorry you feel like you do, but i dont think we should resort to the name calling that has entered the thread.


----------



## trilogy

IM SORRIE TOM I WAS TOO HARD ON YOU. your not a bad guy


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Do you really think 90% of Charles County cares about this?  Please!  90% of Charles County doesn't even know about this.
> 
> It isn't me that makes you hate cops.  It is the crappy upbringing you had from your divorced parents.  The fact that you were promiscuous at an early age, and the fact that police didn't buy into the b.s. you tried to sell them when they gave you whatever punishment they gave you.
> 
> I happen to work for the Navy, but I feel strongly about respecting law enforcement officers.  Perhaps if your mommy and daddy taught you something while you were growing up, you would respect them too!


WOW you work for the Navy?  you are one of our few, and proud?

Well maybe if your mommy and daddy showed you some love when you were growing up, then maybe you wouldnt have so much hatred in your body for regular people.  apparently you were in a controlling household when you were just a little man, that you think it is normal.


oh and before you say something really mean about me sleeping around or getting my sex change operation or anything like that, let me tell you up front

my mommy and daddy were brother and sister and my brother is also my uncle, and my aunt, well she is part poodle and part person.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> WOW that is pretty hard mr. tom,  I dont really care for cops that are underhanded -- i respect the ones that are the good cops, but like every profession there are a few bad apples in every tree and long is one of the bad apples.  you take up for him when you know nothing about the situation.  none of us do, no one was there but one person and that one person is not talking.   all evidence points to long being wrong and nothing has been brought to light, other than his word, but pictures are with a thousand words, so therefore the mattias word is clearly the more vocal one at this point.  I am sorry you feel like you do, but i dont think we should resort to the name calling that has entered the thread.


 I hate to point this out to you dmh..or dawn or what ever your name is.  You are the person who called me a name first.  I will be respectfull as the person I am speaking with.  I would much rather have an intellegent difference of opinion than resort to name calling.  However, when called a name, either in the posts or in the karma thing, I will call a name back!


----------



## tom88

trilogy said:
			
		

> IM SORRIE TOM I WAS TOO HARD ON YOU. your not a bad guy


 Your funny trilogy..thank you for not being so hard on me..lol


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> WOW you work for the Navy?  you are one of our few, and proud?
> 
> Well maybe if your mommy and daddy showed you some love when you were growing up, then maybe you wouldnt have so much hatred in your body for regular people.  apparently you were in a controlling household when you were just a little man, that you think it is normal.
> 
> 
> oh and before you say something really mean about me sleeping around or getting my sex change operation or anything like that, let me tell you up front
> 
> my mommy and daddy were brother and sister and my brother is also my uncle, and my aunt, well she is part poodle and part person.


 haha thats funny.  I am not a hater.  I just differ in my opinion than some of you!  I only meet anger with anger.  

Mommy and Daddy were very loving..there were several of us and we are all upstanding citizens.  But good luck on those family issues of yours.


----------



## trilogy

hi rc! i wont tell anyone who u r


----------



## 88stringslouie

trilogy said:
			
		

> tom ? do you have any living family?



Well, Mr. Tom88 impressed me (once) by admitting that he's a conservative.
I must admit that I'm a 2nd amendment, Ted Nugent, gun-loving one myself.
I have friends on the CCSD, up on Cap Hill, and one that trains officers at marksmanship.  
I think Mr. Tom88 has a severe disconnect with animal lovers.  Personally, he doesn't know some stuff that may have occurred in Chucky County years and years ago, that maybe only Chucky County HS students may remember (growing up around these sticks).  I think that it may serve him well to do a little research.


----------



## marybek

sparkyaclown said:
			
		

> Well being a dog owner I have never known a dog that wasn't tied up to stay put in the backyard 2 feet from the door while a stranger noses around their territory.  If that dog was not tied up and was that aggressive he would have been on that officer the second he stepped into the backyard if not sooner.  The photos showing the choke collar not attached look staged to me.  Sorry, but if wasn't tied up that shooting would have taken place much farther away from the tether itself.  Also your "good ole boy" standard is probably what is shielding this officer.  From what I have heard, no photos of the actual bite were taken.  While they were not allowed to see or talk to the officer, the EMT personnel confided to the Mattaias' that the officer only required a bandaid.


 Well lets examine that.  If the EMT guy is unethical enough to share someone else's medical information, how can we trust them.  By the way, I don't believe the emt person is unethical, I think the Mattias or whoever said the EMT person said this isn't telling the truth.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I hate to point this out to you dmh..or dawn or what ever your name is.  You are the person who called me a name first.  I will be respectfull as the person I am speaking with.  I would much rather have an intellegent difference of opinion than resort to name calling.  However, when called a name, either in the posts or in the karma thing, I will call a name back!




Oh no, Thomas do not bring me in the tangled web you are weaving.  I havent jumped on the bash tom bandwagon for a couple of hours now, I will jump in when I feel its appropriate.


----------



## FrankBama1234

Again, nothing on the last 3 pages about Max. This issue is dead. God bless Long and the members of the CCSD. Long live Officer Long. The good deed hero who is single handedly ridding Charles County of the nuisance of dogs. They must die. One at a time!!!!! God, I love the internet!!!!!


----------



## Woodyspda

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Again, nothing on the last 3 pages about Max. This issue is dead. God bless Long and the members of the CCSD. Long live Officer Long. The good deed hero who is single handedly ridding Charles County of the nuisance of dogs. They must die. One at a time!!!!! God, I love the internet!!!!!




go drink another 10 oz Bud 

anyone maliciously harming my dog is going to pay.


----------



## dmh

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Again, nothing on the last 3 pages about Max. This issue is dead. God bless Long and the members of the CCSD. Long live Officer Long. The good deed hero who is single handedly ridding Charles County of the nuisance of dogs. They must die. One at a time!!!!! God, I love the internet!!!!!





You are one true waste of life.  I sent you red karma and I hope each and every peice of what I said happens to you.


----------



## Wilona

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Again, nothing on the last 3 pages about Max. This issue is dead. God bless Long and the members of the CCSD. Long live Officer Long. The good deed hero who is single handedly ridding Charles County of the nuisance of dogs. They must die. One at a time!!!!! God, I love the internet!!!!!




Yah u do so you can hide behind it, you dickless, worthless POS!


----------



## 88stringslouie

I'm wondering if Mr. Tom88 or FrankBama1234 are aware of the things that occurred way back when in Chucky County?
It's amazing what keeps people from "getting in" for such a long time, whilst working their butt off anyway.


----------



## dawn

Its been one month ago today that Max was killed and yet STILL no comment from the sherriffs office.  Amazing!    How hard is it to do an investigation.  The only need to internview one person.  The solve murders quicker than this.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dmh said:
			
		

> You are one true waste of life.  I sent you red karma and I hope each and every peice of what I said happens to you.


Ohhh pleez, not the red karma. Anything but that. You morons still don't get it. The Sheriff's Office will not make a statement because Long did nothing wrong. All this hero did was try to get some dead beat dad to pay his damn child support. Funny how everyone here cares more about that damn dog than they do about the poor kid not being supported by his father. The Mattia's son is a dirt bag. He didn't mind bringing the child into the world, but is irresponsible. What a douche bag. So all you people leaving me red karma (whatever the hell that is) kiss my WASP ass!!!!


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Ohhh pleez, not the red karma. Anything but that. You morons still don't get it. The Sheriff's Office will not make a statement because Long did nothing wrong. All this hero did was try to get some dead beat dad to pay his damn child support. Funny how everyone here cares more about that damn dog than they do about the poor kid not being supported by his father. The Mattia's son is a dirt bag. He didn't mind bringing the child into the world, but is irresponsible. What a douche bag. So all you people leaving me red karma (whatever the hell that is) kiss my WASP ass!!!!




No prick, you dont get it.  Long is wrong, what the hair trigger coward did was kill a family dog by the name of Max.  

First and formost off we dont know if the kid is a "little poor kid" or not.  There are county services that help indigent people out.   For all we know the mom can take very good care of the child without the help of the father and took him to court just for spite.  We don't know, now do we.  What do we know is that Max was at his own home two feet from the door step and was murdered, by a police officer that maybe should have gone that extra mile (as others have expressed, long did by walking around the back of the house) and check court and mva records to verify where the son lived.  The  Mattia's son is a dirt bag and frankly I beleive you are lower than the son.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Nice talk*



			
				FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Ohhh pleez, not the red karma. Anything but that. You morons still don't get it. The Sheriff's Office will not make a statement because Long did nothing wrong. All this hero did was try to get some dead beat dad to pay his damn child support. Funny how everyone here cares more about that damn dog than they do about the poor kid not being supported by his father. The Mattia's son is a dirt bag. He didn't mind bringing the child into the world, but is irresponsible. What a douche bag. So all you people leaving me red karma (whatever the hell that is) kiss my WASP ass!!!!



I don't think that we need to get into morality here.  Long doesn't enforce child support, the courts do.  He's just the mailman delivering the summons.  After checking the Judicial website, there's plenty of crap to go around for all parties concerned.

The leader of the CCSD has created this mess by not making a public statement.
Oh well, should we have expected anything better?  No.
Who's the poor kid, by the way? How do we know the mother isn't out spending the money on drugs, needing more?  We don't.

I'm offended that you call the Mattia's Max a "damn dog".  There are many people that don't deserve that high of a complement. I've lost all respect for the administration of the CCSD over this.  As many people have, I'm sure.

I don't expect all or many people to think of a domestic pet as a family member like I do.  So we will disagree on that.  I'm sorry that the Mattias weren't home when Long opened fire.  I'm sorry that Max was tied outside.  
I wouldn't tie our dog outside, so that wouldn't be an issue.  I also wouldn't be in the position needing to pay child support.

Long will have to live with this the rest of his life as he is the only one knowing the circumstances.  The voters will have this on their mind during the next election.  We need to make sure that this publicized in all the local area newspapers.
Oh well, that was his choice.  It's nice to know that the voters have the final say.  I know that I'll certainly be writing a letter to the newspaper reminding anyone reading it about Coffey's disregard for his voter base.


----------



## calamity jane

How come these kids getting shot in drive by's don't bother you folks as much. as a dog. If you loved the dog so much, and he was so gentle, why did he need a choke collar.


----------



## dawn

calamity jane said:
			
		

> How come these kids getting shot in drive by's don't bother you folks as much. as a dog. If you loved the dog so much, and he was so gentle, why did he need a choke collar.



Because the police arent the ones that are killing the kids.  The cops are actually trying to find the losers that do the drive by shootings.   

The Charles County Sherriffs office have a murderer as one of their own and they continue to wash their hands in blood by not taking responsibility of one of their officers.


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> Because the police arent the ones that are killing the kids.  The cops are actually trying to find the losers that do the drive by shootings.
> 
> The Charles County Sherriffs office have a murderer as one of their own and they continue to wash their hands in blood by not taking responsibility of one of their officers.


You don't MURDER a dog, you kill it.

There are no laws concerning the MURDER of a dog.. there are laws about cruelty and killing of an animal.. but you can't murder one.

And it was an animal, not a child..


----------



## u gotta love me

itsbob said:
			
		

> You don't MURDER a dog, you kill it.
> 
> There are no laws concerning the MURDER of a dog.. there are laws about cruelty and killing of an animal.. but you can't murder one.
> 
> And it was an animal, not a child..




Well considering I have no children, right now my dog is treated as though he is my child and if and when i have a child, my dog will still be treated exactly the same.  If someone killed my dog, I would consider it murder as well.  I dont see where you can that if a person takes the life, whether it be a human or animal, I say it is life and is still murder.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Because the police arent the ones that are killing the kids.  The cops are actually trying to find the losers that do the drive by shootings.
> 
> The Charles County Sherriffs office have a murderer as one of their own and they continue to wash their hands in blood by not taking responsibility of one of their officers.


 Or................................... their officer was in the right and they aren't going to entertain this juvenile dribble about the cop being wrong about shooting a dog who was attacking him.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I don't think that we need to get into morality here.  Long doesn't enforce child support, the courts do.  He's just the mailman delivering the summons.  After checking the Judicial website, there's plenty of crap to go around for all parties concerned.
> 
> The leader of the CCSD has created this mess by not making a public statement.
> Oh well, should we have expected anything better?  No.
> Who's the poor kid, by the way? How do we know the mother isn't out spending the money on drugs, needing more?  We don't.
> 
> I'm offended that you call the Mattia's Max a "damn dog".  There are many people that don't deserve that high of a complement. I've lost all respect for the administration of the CCSD over this.  As many people have, I'm sure.
> 
> I don't expect all or many people to think of a domestic pet as a family member like I do.  So we will disagree on that.  I'm sorry that the Mattias weren't home when Long opened fire.  I'm sorry that Max was tied outside.
> I wouldn't tie our dog outside, so that wouldn't be an issue.  I also wouldn't be in the position needing to pay child support.
> 
> Long will have to live with this the rest of his life as he is the only one knowing the circumstances.  The voters will have this on their mind during the next election.  We need to make sure that this publicized in all the local area newspapers.
> Oh well, that was his choice.  It's nice to know that the voters have the final say.  I know that I'll certainly be writing a letter to the newspaper reminding anyone reading it about Coffey's disregard for his voter base.


I'm sure Long is not losing any sleep over this. Apparently you people are....


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Or................................... their officer was in the right and they aren't going to entertain this juvenile dribble about the cop being wrong about shooting a dog who was attacking him.



Or the Sherriffs office is hoping that this dies down because they know one of their own has yet killed another dog and they cant cover this one up.  

Long is wrong and they know it.


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> Or the Sherriffs office is hoping that this dies down because they know one of their own has yet killed another dog and they cant cover this one up.
> 
> Long is wrong and they know it.


 If Long is wrong, how come the States Attorney in Charles County hasn't taken any action?  Are they conspiring with the Sheriff's Department?  Maybe Long is a special spy sent by the federal government to rid Charles County of all domestic pets?  HMMM.


----------



## heavenly was

I have received word that Officer Long is indeed a spy. What may be more surprising to hear is that he is not from this planet. Nay, he is from the moon. That's right, he's from the little known moon-race called the Moondwellers. This race sprang from some dna dropped by the very first moon walkers. Given the high metabolism rate on the moon, it was able to evolve into people-like lifeforms at about 10,000 times normal evolutionary rates. And he has been sent here to destroy the world's pet population. Two motives here--To demoralize the people of earth so the moondwellers may secure a secondary homeworld, remember they are evolving 10,000 times normal speed, possibly 15,000. And the second motive is to remove all the judges of character that we know our family pets are. Everybody knows people cannot correctly judge another's character, ever. But dogs and other pets can, and they can sniff out these moondwellers already infiltrating our society, and so pose a threat to these moontards.


----------



## itsbob

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Well considering I have no children, right now my dog is treated as though he is my child and if and when i have a child, my dog will still be treated exactly the same.  If someone killed my dog, I would consider it murder as well.  I dont see where you can that if a person takes the life, whether it be a human or animal, I say it is life and is still murder.


Well shoot, I must have been responsible for the murder of several cows (even baby ones), chickens, pigs.. crabs.. I murdered those by the dozens..  You should call the cops and have them arrest me for murder, and conspiracy to comitt murder.. I would assume you're a vegan?


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> If Long is wrong, how come the States Attorney in Charles County hasn't taken any action?  Are they conspiring with the Sheriff's Department?  Maybe Long is a special spy sent by the federal government to rid Charles County of all domestic pets?  HMMM.



As a matter of fact I do believe there is a conspiracy in this case. 
The issue isn't the kid or the summons. The issue is that the officer did not follow protocol. I'm sick of officers of the law getting away with B.S. just because they wear a badge. One bad apple makes them all look bad. The sheriff is silent because he's a politician. 

Tom88 you obviously have a disregard for justice and a love of Animal Cruelty. 

Justify this to ME: Why wasn't animal control contacted????

It's a simple question yet you keep ignoring that aspect of this  conversation.

And you're right.... maybe Officer Long should have been out patrolling for miscreant teenagers leaving hate symbols and words on public property or catching them committing arson instead of approaching a house that was empty.


----------



## Woodyspda

itsbob said:
			
		

> Well shoot, I must have been responsible for the murder of several cows (even baby ones), chickens, pigs.. crabs.. I murdered those by the dozens..  You should call the cops and have them arrest me for murder, and conspiracy to comitt murder.. I would assume you're a vegan?



Now that's just plain silly. 

Now if that cow or chicken belonged to someone other than yourself and you killed it..... hell yes you'd be in trouble. I personally never utilized "murder" in my dialogue but if you maliciously killed those farm animal then yes you were wrong.


----------



## spicy

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact I do believe there is a conspiracy in this case.
> The issue isn't the kid or the summons. The issue is that the officer did not follow protocol. I'm sick of officers of the law getting away with B.S. just because they wear a badge. One bad apple makes them all look bad. The sheriff is silent because he's a politician.
> 
> Tom88 you obviously have a disregard for justice and a love of Animal Cruelty.
> 
> Justify this to ME: Why wasn't animal control contacted????
> 
> It's a simple question yet you keep ignoring that aspect of this  conversation.
> 
> And you're right.... maybe Officer Long should have been out patrolling for miscreant teenagers leaving hate symbols and words on public property or catching them committing arson instead of approaching a house that was empty.



Please explain what you do not understand about each of the following statements.  I will try to make them as simple as possible for you, and if there are any questions, we can clear them up. 

 If the officer feared for his life, and he could either 
A.) Call Animal Control or​B.)Save himself​What seems the most likely option here?




> maybe Officer Long should have been out patrolling ... instead of approaching a house that was empty.


Police aren't in 'Crackdown' or 'Grand Theft Auto'...they don't just run around doing whatever they please. They have a job. And tasks to do in order to do their job. In this case, it was to serve a warrant. To a criminal. It doesn't matter if the house was empty. Maybe he doesn't want to do a half-assed job, Sherry Bobbins. Whoops...it looks empty from back here...nobody's home.


----------



## Woodyspda

spicy said:
			
		

> Please explain what you do not understand about each of the following statements.  I will try to make them as simple as possible for you, and if there are any questions, we can clear them up.
> 
> If the officer feared for his life, and he could either
> A.) Call Animal Control or​B.)Save himself​What seems the most likely option here?
> 
> 
> Police aren't in 'Crackdown' or 'Grand Theft Auto'...they don't just run around doing whatever they please. They have a job. And tasks to do in order to do their job. In this case, it was to serve a warrant. To a criminal. It doesn't matter if the house was empty. Maybe he doesn't want to do a half-assed job, Sherry Bobbins. Whoops...it looks empty from back here...nobody's home.



FEARED for his life???? come on now the poor thing was on a lead. 

Is this the scaredest cop on the planet???? Maybe he should go collect tolls if he's that scared.

I'm guessing he was afraid to use the mace on his belt too....

It was a family pet not a GD coyote DA.


----------



## Woodyspda

BTW.... I have no idea what "crackdown" is....nor have I ever played GTA so I really have zero reference here.....

The reference that I do have deals with common sense. 

Quit protecting this idiot....one day it may not be family pet but a family member.... if he's that skittish he shouldn't have a gun. PERIOD


----------



## Woodyspda

OH, and from what I can tell (I'm not assuming) Animal Control wasn't called after the incident either. If they were, then kudos to whoever called them. 

There may have been a poodle around the next corner...

The officer knew that dog resided on the property from his prior visits.... is he stupid too????


----------



## spicy

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> FEARED for his life???? come on now the poor thing was on a lead.
> 
> Is this the scaredest cop on the planet???? Maybe he should go collect tolls if he's that scared.
> 
> I'm guessing he was afraid to use the mace on his belt too....
> 
> It was a family pet not a GD coyote DA.



Do you know he was on a lead? 

Do you know he had mace on his belt?

The officer said the dog had become loose from the leash.

For the record, i don't know what a 'GD coyote DA' is but just because a dog is a family dog doesnt mean anything. Animals are animals.

I'm not protecting anyone here, I just think it's ridiculous that people think they know exactly what happened when in fact they have no clue. Just like with so many other things in their lives.


----------



## Woodyspda

spicy said:
			
		

> Do you know he was on a lead?
> 
> Do you know he had mace on his belt?
> 
> The officer said the dog had become loose from the leash.
> 
> For the record, i don't know what a 'GD coyote DA' is but just because a dog is a family dog doesnt mean anything. Animals are animals.
> 
> I'm not protecting anyone here, I just think it's ridiculous that people think they know exactly what happened when in fact they have no clue. Just like with so many other things in their lives.



I'm no CSI but:

Lead=yes there are several pictures where you can see that a bullet had severed it.

Mace=haven't seen a uniformed officer in nearly five years that didn't have it on their belt. (that's like asking me if I'm sure he had cuffs on his belt)

It doesn't take much when you realize that this underqualified officer has shot 3 dogs (I'm sure under different circumstances) throughout his career....

And you ARE defending him, a trigger happy coward who can't stand up for himself.

As far as the animal comment goes....homo sapiens are technically animals too. A very violent species that has been known to kill their own for greed and jealousy among other things. 

If I would have shot this dog, I'd have been put in jail and or fined. Just because this officer wears a badge he walks. I've lost total respect for the CCSD....

Oh, one other thing....if a civilian kills a police dog it is considered the equivalent of killing a human officer or in other words "murder"


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact I do believe there is a conspiracy in this case.
> The issue isn't the kid or the summons. The issue is that the officer did not follow protocol. I'm sick of officers of the law getting away with B.S. just because they wear a badge. One bad apple makes them all look bad. The sheriff is silent because he's a politician.
> 
> Tom88 you obviously have a disregard for justice and a love of Animal Cruelty.
> 
> Justify this to ME: Why wasn't animal control contacted????
> 
> It's a simple question yet you keep ignoring that aspect of this  conversation.
> 
> And you're right.... maybe Officer Long should have been out patrolling for miscreant teenagers leaving hate symbols and words on public property or catching them committing arson instead of approaching a house that was empty.


 Why should animal control be contacted?  The dog was on a leash, then the dog got off of his leash?  I know plenty of plain clothe officers (which is what this officer is) who don't wear "mace" which is actually pepper spray on their belts.

An animal attacking a cop is going to be delt with by whatever means the cop has.  God Bless Officer Long who is a HERO to this community.


----------



## spicy

I will laugh when one day one of these ingrates is in serious trouble in their home, with their 'nice' dog chained up outside. An officer shows up, sees the dog tied, maybe the house looks empty...we'll just call animal control. Wait a while for them to show up...see what happens.


----------



## itsbob

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Oh, one other thing....if a civilian kills a police dog it is considered the equivalent of killing a human officer or in other words "murder"


here's a person accused of killing a police dog.. where does it say he was accused of murder??

A Jackson Township man who shot and killed a Findlay police dog after it came onto his property insists he didn't know the dog worked for police, but a Hancock County grand jury apparently saw things differently.

Steven E. Vanderhoff, 41, was indicted this week for assaulting a police dog and cruelty to animals. The assault charge, a third-degree felony, alleges that while Flip was not assisting police at the time he was killed Nov. 18, the shooter had actual knowledge that Flip was a police dog.

Cruelty to Animals.. and assault.. no first or second degree murder charges.. not even dog(man)slaughter charges..


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> I'm no CSI but:
> 
> Lead=yes there are several pictures where you can see that a bullet had severed it.
> 
> Mace=haven't seen a uniformed officer in nearly five years that didn't have it on their belt. (that's like asking me if I'm sure he had cuffs on his belt)
> 
> It doesn't take much when you realize that this underqualified officer has shot 3 dogs (I'm sure under different circumstances) throughout his career....
> 
> And you ARE defending him, a trigger happy coward who can't stand up for himself.
> 
> As far as the animal comment goes....homo sapiens are technically animals too. A very violent species that has been known to kill their own for greed and jealousy among other things.
> 
> If I would have shot this dog, I'd have been put in jail and or fined. Just because this officer wears a badge he walks. I've lost total respect for the CCSD....
> 
> Oh, one other thing....if a civilian kills a police dog it is considered the equivalent of killing a human officer or in other words "murder"


 Killing a police dog is not murder!  That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  You can only be convicted of murder if you take the life of another "PERSON".


----------



## itsbob

State legislators are sending a bill to Gov. Mike Easley's desk that – if Easley signs it – will make willfully killing a police or assistance animal a felony that could include up to eight months in prison for the first offense.

The NEW harsher law in NC... UP to 8 months for killing a police dog.. Doesn't quite equate to MURDER now does it?


----------



## itsbob

Maryland Law

SECTION 16 – Dogs Attacking Other Animals or Humans
Any person may kill any dog which he sees in the act of pursuing, attacking, wounding or killing any human being, or any poultry or livestock, whether or not such dog bears the proper license tag required by this chapter.  There shall be no liability upon such person or persons in damages or otherwise for such killing.  All such cases shall be promptly reported to the ASP and be investigated by ASP.


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> I'm no CSI but:
> 
> Lead=yes there are several pictures where you can see that a bullet had severed it.
> 
> Mace=haven't seen a uniformed officer in nearly five years that didn't have it on their belt. (that's like asking me if I'm sure he had cuffs on his belt)
> 
> It doesn't take much when you realize that this underqualified officer has shot 3 dogs (I'm sure under different circumstances) throughout his career....
> 
> And you ARE defending him, a trigger happy coward who can't stand up for himself.
> 
> As far as the animal comment goes....homo sapiens are technically animals too. A very violent species that has been known to kill their own for greed and jealousy among other things.
> 
> If I would have shot this dog, I'd have been put in jail and or fined. Just because this officer wears a badge he walks. I've lost total respect for the CCSD....
> 
> Oh, one other thing....if a civilian kills a police dog it is considered the equivalent of killing a human officer or in other words "murder"


 This is just one more example of you putting out mis-information, trying to justify your cause.  Why should we believe anything you say when it is proven you put out false information?

If this was intentional you are a liar!  If this was not intentional, well we can figure out what you are!


----------



## Woodyspda

spicy said:
			
		

> I will laugh when one day one of these ingrates is in serious trouble in their home, with their 'nice' dog chained up outside. An officer shows up, sees the dog tied, maybe the house looks empty...we'll just call animal control. Wait a while for them to show up...see what happens.



Are you calling me an ingrate???? 

and yes, if my dog is in the yard and barking at a cop while I'm waiting for emergency services, I expect that they will not murder my companion and protector but will follow PROTOCOL.
and BTW, my dog is on an invisible leash when she's in the yard and on occasion has 2 or 3 other dogs visiting.... All of them bark whenever ANYONE approaches the yard.... I would bet money that the dog in this case was barking long before the officer made his way around the house. That is, unless he was deaf.


the least I'd expect from the CCSD is a report on shots fired and why.


----------



## spicy

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Are you calling me an ingrate????
> 
> and yes, if my dog is in the yard and barking at a cop while I'm waiting for emergency services, I expect that they will not murder my companion and protector but will follow PROTOCOL.
> and BTW, my dog is on an invisible leash when she's in the yard and on occasion has 2 or 3 other dogs visiting.... All of them bark whenever ANYONE approaches the yard.... I would bet money that the dog in this case was barking long before the officer made his way around the house. That is, unless he was deaf.
> 
> 
> the least I'd expect from the CCSD is a report on shots fired and why.



 Yes, as a matter of fact I am calling you an ingrate. 

 What do you know about police protocol?

 Wow, never heard of an invisible leash before.

 What if you were having a heart attack...Still want to wait around for animal control?


----------



## tom88

tom88 said:
			
		

> Killing a police dog is not murder!  That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  You can only be convicted of murder if you take the life of another "PERSON".


 Hey Woodyspda.  Why did you make that stuff up about killing a police dog being murder?  Did you intentionally lie, or are you just that ignorant about the law?  And if you made that up, how much other information you have provided is false?

No quick witted answer for this huh?


----------



## u gotta love me

spicy said:
			
		

> I will laugh when one day one of these ingrates is in serious trouble in their home, with their 'nice' dog chained up outside. An officer shows up, sees the dog tied, maybe the house looks empty...we'll just call animal control. Wait a while for them to show up...see what happens.




First off, I have my registered little friend, and I assure you that if I have serious trouble at my house, my first ingrate instinct will be shoot first and then call the CCSO to come for serious trouble to my home.  

And I would laugh at the day that the azzholes are in serious trouble and because of some of the incompetent people we have at the CCSO mistakes the azzhole for a "bad guy" and does what the CCSD finest do....... 



I will leave the blank there, because I dont want red karma for wishing bad on losers   .


----------



## pingrr

spicy said:
			
		

> :yay
> 
> Wow, never heard of an invisible leash before.
> 
> ?




They are the electric collars people get for dogs.  When the animal gets two far away from the base station they get shocked until they come back into range.

They work quite well.  I make all of my ho's were them.


----------



## u gotta love me

spicy said:
			
		

> Yes, as a matter of fact I am calling you an ingrate.
> 
> What do you know about police protocol?
> 
> Wow, never heard of an invisible leash before.
> 
> What if you were having a heart attack...Still want to wait around for animal control?



you are a huge POS.  

WTF do you know about police protocol, other than the fact you have probably had to call the cops on your druken, abusive lesbo girlfriend.  Just becuase you have a relationship by calling the cops, doesnt give you insight on police protocol.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hey Woodyspda.  Why did you make that stuff up about killing a police dog being murder?  Did you intentionally lie, or are you just that ignorant about the law?  And if you made that up, how much other information you have provided is false?
> 
> No quick witted answer for this huh?


 

Well TOM88, check your info.  If a person kills a police dog in the line of duty, yes sir, the person would be charged with murdering a police officer.


----------



## itsbob

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Well TOM88, check your info.  If a person kills a police dog in the line of duty, yes sir, the person would be charged with murdering a police officer.


Show us the law..

Don't just spout 'facts' back them up.

All i can find is IF you kill, shoot, or assault a dog in the line of duty it is a felony (only a misdemeanor if you assault a HUMAN cop).. NOT murder... punishable by up to 8 months in prison (not a very strict punishment for "murdering a cop"!!)


----------



## spicy

pingrr said:
			
		

> I make all of my ho's were them.



You make them be invisible leashes?


----------



## pingrr

spicy said:
			
		

> You make them be invisible leashes?




Yep they all have to where proximity leashes so they can't run away from me.


----------



## spicy

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> First off, I have my registered little friend, and I assure you that if I have serious trouble at my house, my first ingrate instinct will be shoot first and then call the CCSO to come for serious trouble to my home.
> 
> And I would laugh at the day that the azzholes are in serious trouble and because of some of the incompetent people we have at the CCSO mistakes the azzhole for a "bad guy" and does what the CCSD finest do.......
> 
> 
> 
> I will leave the blank there, because I dont want red karma for wishing bad on losers   .



Did it not even cross your tiny mind that maybe it wouldn't involve anybody but you, i.e. heart attack...etc. Or maybe you were having some good times with your 'little friend' and accidentally shot yourself. What then? Still going to shoot first ask questions later?


----------



## spicy

pingrr said:
			
		

> Yep they all have to where proximity leashes so they can't run away from me.



It's 'wear' and 'proximity.' I know you know better.

That's not fair. It said 'procimity' or something.


----------



## pingrr

spicy said:
			
		

> It's 'wear' and 'proximity.' I know you know better.




I'm a Ninja.  There is no need for proper spelling in my day to day activities.


----------



## spicy

pingrr said:
			
		

> I'm a Ninja.  There is no need for proper spelling in my day to day activities.



You must have overlooked Paragraph 236, Line 8 in the Book of Ninja...Go do some reading nub.


----------



## FrankBama1234

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> I'm no CSI but:
> 
> Lead=yes there are several pictures where you can see that a bullet had severed it.
> 
> Mace=haven't seen a uniformed officer in nearly five years that didn't have it on their belt. (that's like asking me if I'm sure he had cuffs on his belt)
> 
> It doesn't take much when you realize that this underqualified officer has shot 3 dogs (I'm sure under different circumstances) throughout his career....
> 
> And you ARE defending him, a trigger happy coward who can't stand up for himself.
> 
> As far as the animal comment goes....homo sapiens are technically animals too. A very violent species that has been known to kill their own for greed and jealousy among other things.
> 
> If I would have shot this dog, I'd have been put in jail and or fined. Just because this officer wears a badge he walks. I've lost total respect for the CCSD....
> 
> Oh, one other thing....if a civilian kills a police dog it is considered the equivalent of killing a human officer or in other words "murder"


No it's not the same. There are special penalties in place if someone injures or kills a police dog, however, it is still not murder. The long and short of it is this: Long had a right to be there. Police do not have "crystal balls" that they can look at and tell who is in the house and who isn't. I have said it here before several times, no officer wakes up and says, "today, I'm going to kill a dog". No one does. Max had a right to protect his space, as Long had a right to protect himself. A lot of officers do not carry mace anymore, they carry Tasers. The problem with the Taser, is that it is roughly the same size as a pistol and has to be worn on the officers "weak side". Example, if the officer is right handed, the Taser would be on his left side. We have beaten this as far as we can, and I am certain the Mattias are hurting. I am sure that Long is probably hurting as well. Officers do not like "pulling the trigger" for anything, trust me. I personally have had to put many a deer down for humanitarian reasons, but I did not like it. Long may have shot at the dog 7 times, but if he was being attacked, the dog probably did not stand still so Long could get a clean (One round) shot at him. That's just the way  it is. I know Dawn and some of you others don't agree with me, and thats OK. That's what makes this country great. People can have their opinions and not have to worry about be persecuted. I still maintain that Long was well within his rights to protect himself. And again, had Junior just lived up to his obligation and paid support for his child, this whole mess could have been avoided.....just my opinion.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Well TOM88, check your info.  If a person kills a police dog in the line of duty, yes sir, the person would be charged with murdering a police officer.


 Ok, checked my information.  Spoke to a Charles County States Attorney.  He told me if someone shot a police dog, having no other facts, the following charges could apply.  Animal Cruelty, or Malicious Destruction of Property.  

Prove me wrong and cite the statute!


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> No it's not the same. There are special penalties in place if someone injures or kills a police dog, however, it is still not murder. The long and short of it is this: Long had a right to be there. Police do not have "crystal balls" that they can look at and tell who is in the house and who isn't. I have said it here before several times, no officer wakes up and says, "today, I'm going to kill a dog". No one does. Max had a right to protect his space, as Long had a right to protect himself. A lot of officers do not carry mace anymore, they carry Tasers. The problem with the Taser, is that it is roughly the same size as a pistol and has to be worn on the officers "weak side". Example, if the officer is right handed, the Taser would be on his left side. We have beaten this as far as we can, and I am certain the Mattias are hurting. I am sure that Long is probably hurting as well. Officers do not like "pulling the trigger" for anything, trust me. I personally have had to put many a deer down for humanitarian reasons, but I did not like it. Long may have shot at the dog 7 times, but if he was being attacked, the dog probably did not stand still so Long could get a clean (One round) shot at him. That's just the way  it is. I know Dawn and some of you others don't agree with me, and thats OK. That's what makes this country great. People can have their opinions and not have to worry about be persecuted. I still maintain that Long was well within his rights to protect himself. And again, had Junior just lived up to his obligation and paid support for his child, this whole mess could have been avoided.....just my opinion.





Well Frank you got a few things correct in your post.

1.	I  do not agree with you and your comments;
2.	No, I don’t think Long woke up and decided today he was going to kill a dog; 
3.	Max did have a right to defend his territory as Long has a right to protect himself, if he was in danger.  

We only have Long’s word to go by.  We also have a mountain of proof that rebuts just about every scenario that Long alleges happened.  

Long says Max was off the leash, well Mattias say Max was tied up.  Max was shot right next to his leash (coincidence?)   If Max was running loose as Long suggests, why wouldn’t Max meet long as he pulled up to the house, or even when Long tried door number 1, 2 or 3, why would Max wait until Long came to door 4  to attack and why would he wait until Long made it right to the back door to attack (proof of that is in the pictures).   Long’s story doesn’t add up with the dog was loose theory.  

Max was shot in the back of the head.  If a dog is aggressive he doesn’t run at your backwards, so why was the back of his head shot at?

Where was long when the son came home.  Why didn’t long approach the son upon the sons arrival home, after all his is looking for fugitive?  

Statically how many officers are in one aggressive animal related shootings thought their career?  Let alone three? I personally know many officers (as has been noted) including ones that serve child support warrants, and not one of them have ever had a animal shooting.  With Long having three dog related killings (that the public is made aware of) seems inexcusable.  I guess all three dogs were so aggressive that he had to shot to kill, amazing.   Long has had a few questionable items in his past that has come to light because of this case.  I don’t see anyone that is on the Mattia side of this debate attacking the things that have been put on display regarding Longs personal life and choices, so why does everyone on this thread that is for Long want to attack the Mattias because of their son has done or in this case not done.  

Bottom line is this thread nor this story will go away until an acknowledgment of responsibility is made.  

The Mattias have already said that they are not happy their  son does not pay child support, but that is not the issue.  The issue is an officer of the law shot and killed a dog that was tied up.    There is nothing that can convince me different.  If the dog was loose he would have meet long way before Long made it to the fourth door and he surely would not have waited at the door step (which is where Max was shot at) for Long to approach.   This is the third killing that is public.  This kind of officer is not needed on the force, he obviously is in need of retraining on how to 1.  be a sharp shooter; 2.  approach houses that have animals present when serving a warrant; 3. retake the oath on upholding the law and telling the truth and 4 admit that he is deathly afraid of dogs.

It is not acceptable that because you have a badge you are allowed to do whatever you want.  Officers do lie, look at the Rodney King situation; Mark Furman lied on the stand during the OJ trial.  So you cant take a police officers word verbatim just because they are the police.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Well Frank you got a few things correct in your post.
> 
> 1.	I  do not agree with you and your comments;
> 2.	No, I don’t think Long woke up and decided today he was going to kill a dog;
> 3.	Max did have a right to defend his territory as Long has a right to protect himself, if he was in danger.
> 
> We only have Long’s word to go by.  We also have a mountain of proof that rebuts just about every scenario that Long alleges happened.
> 
> Long says Max was off the leash, well Mattias say Max was tied up.  Max was shot right next to his leash (coincidence?)   If Max was running loose as Long suggests, why wouldn’t Max meet long as he pulled up to the house, or even when Long tried door number 1, 2 or 3, why would Max wait until Long came to door 4  to attack and why would he wait until Long made it right to the back door to attack (proof of that is in the pictures).   Long’s story doesn’t add up with the dog was loose theory.
> 
> Max was shot in the back of the head.  If a dog is aggressive he doesn’t run at your backwards, so why was the back of his head shot at?
> 
> Where was long when the son came home.  Why didn’t long approach the son upon the sons arrival home, after all his is looking for fugitive?
> 
> Statically how many officers are in one aggressive animal related shootings thought their career?  Let alone three? I personally know many officers (as has been noted) including ones that serve child support warrants, and not one of them have ever had a animal shooting.  With Long having three dog related killings (that the public is made aware of) seems inexcusable.  I guess all three dogs were so aggressive that he had to shot to kill, amazing.   Long has had a few questionable items in his past that has come to light because of this case.  I don’t see anyone that is on the Mattia side of this debate attacking the things that have been put on display regarding Longs personal life and choices, so why does everyone on this thread that is for Long want to attack the Mattias because of their son has done or in this case not done.
> 
> Bottom line is this thread nor this story will go away until an acknowledgment of responsibility is made.
> 
> The Mattias have already said that they are not happy their  son does not pay child support, but that is not the issue.  The issue is an officer of the law shot and killed a dog that was tied up.    There is nothing that can convince me different.  If the dog was loose he would have meet long way before Long made it to the fourth door and he surely would not have waited at the door step (which is where Max was shot at) for Long to approach.   This is the third killing that is public.  This kind of officer is not needed on the force, he obviously is in need of retraining on how to 1.  be a sharp shooter; 2.  approach houses that have animals present when serving a warrant; 3. retake the oath on upholding the law and telling the truth and 4 admit that he is deathly afraid of dogs.
> 
> It is not acceptable that because you have a badge you are allowed to do whatever you want.  Officers do lie, look at the Rodney King situation; Mark Furman lied on the stand during the OJ trial.  So you cant take a police officers word verbatim just because they are the police.


 Dawn who cares what you think?  Let this post continue.  Long is not in touble now, nor will he be because he did nothing wrong.  What lies were told during Rodney King?  NONE.  So you bring a situation up where officers beat somebody up, were aquitted of assault, but later found guilty of civil rights violations.  (Seems to me the police were treated unfairly.)  But you have to make stuff up, just like Woody, instead of spouting the facts.  It's all conjecture on your part.  NONE of the Rodney King officers were accused of lying.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Dawn who cares what you think?  Let this post continue.  Long is not in touble now, nor will he be because he did nothing wrong.  What lies were told during Rodney King?  NONE.  So you bring a situation up where officers beat somebody up, were aquitted of assault, but later found guilty of civil rights violations.  (Seems to me the police were treated unfairly.)  But you have to make stuff up, just like Woody, instead of spouting the facts.  It's all conjecture on your part.  NONE of the Rodney King officers were accused of lying.



I thought that they officers originally had stated that he put up a fight and resisted arrest and that was the reason behind the beating, while in the process if searching I found this quote by Christopher Darden, I feel it probably fits Charles County as well -- AND BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS IN WITH A COMPARISON NOTE -- I AM MERELY TRYING TO SHOW THAT POLICE OFFICERS DO LIE AND WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT I FOUND WHERE IN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAID THAT THEY TRY HARD NOT TO FILE CASES AGAINST OFFICERS AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT CCSO THAT THEY TEND TO COVER THINGS TO PROTECT THEIR OWN



Former Los Angeles prosecutor Christopher Darden also remembers when he saw the shocking images. 

"I was in district attorney's office when the video was played for the first time and we were all astounded," he told CNN. "We had a very, very poor record of filing cases against police officers and routinely we found a way not to file cases against police officers. But to see that video that day, we all came to a realization that perhaps we'd been wrong."


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> I thought that they officers originally had stated that he put up a fight and resisted arrest and that was the reason behind the beating, while in the process if searching I found this quote by Christopher Darden, I feel it probably fits Charles County as well -- AND BEFORE ANYONE JUMPS IN WITH A COMPARISON NOTE -- I AM MERELY TRYING TO SHOW THAT POLICE OFFICERS DO LIE AND WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THAT I FOUND WHERE IN A DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAID THAT THEY TRY HARD NOT TO FILE CASES AGAINST OFFICERS AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT CCSO THAT THEY TEND TO COVER THINGS TO PROTECT THEIR OWN
> 
> 
> 
> Former Los Angeles prosecutor Christopher Darden also remembers when he saw the shocking images.
> 
> "I was in district attorney's office when the video was played for the first time and we were all astounded," he told CNN. "We had a very, very poor record of filing cases against police officers and routinely we found a way not to file cases against police officers. But to see that video that day, we all came to a realization that perhaps we'd been wrong."


 He did put up a fight initially.  You are paying attention to the part of the tape which the media choose to show.  If you saw the entire tape, you would have seen RODNEY KING assault a police officer, throw her to the ground and go after another police officer.  That is part of the reason the JURY aquitted the offices of assault.

Keep searching!


----------



## marybek

The people in this section are pretty nasty in the private messages when you say something they disagree with.


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> If Long is wrong, how come the States Attorney in Charles County hasn't taken any action?  Are they conspiring with the Sheriff's Department?  Maybe Long is a special spy sent by the federal government to rid Charles County of all domestic pets?  HMMM.



Now I know you are naive and foolish.
The States Attorney prosecuting the good old boys?

You are crazy.  State at least 5 cases that good old Leonard has prosecuted good old boys on the CCSD.


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Why should animal control be contacted?  The dog was on a leash, then the dog got off of his leash?  I know plenty of plain clothe officers (which is what this officer is) who don't wear "mace" which is actually pepper spray on their belts.
> 
> An animal attacking a cop is going to be delt with by whatever means the cop has.  God Bless Officer Long who is a HERO to this community.



Yea, right.  I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the coincidence that this "God Blessed Officer" lived right down the street from Mattia's ex-wife.

He ain't no damned hero in the community that I live.  He's a coward that blows away dogs.  I'm also wondering why the Mattias haven't chimed in since a couple of days after the immoral act of gunning down a family pet.
I'm starting to smell more than 1 rat.


----------



## RoseRed

Ya'll give me the hiccups.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Now I know you are naive and foolish.
> The States Attorney prosecuting the good old boys?
> 
> You are crazy.  State at least 5 cases that good old Leonard has prosecuted good old boys on the CCSD.


 Give me five cases where you believe officers have done something to be prosecuted on?


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Yea, right.  I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the coincidence that this "God Blessed Officer" lived right down the street from Mattia's ex-wife.
> 
> He ain't no damned hero in the community that I live.  He's a coward that blows away dogs.  I'm also wondering why the Mattias haven't chimed in since a couple of days after the immoral act of gunning down a family pet.
> I'm starting to smell more than 1 rat.


 What are you insinuating with Mattias wife living down the street?  I don't get it.  Just say it!


----------



## Steve

The dog got shot. It's dead. It was the officer's decision at the time. Right or wrong, let it go. The officer lives with that moment now...

Let it rest.


----------



## Max's Mom

I'd like to update everyone who has followed Max's story.  Two investigators came to our home last Thursday, 6/14 and spent about 1 hour talking with us, reviewing the evidence, looking at our pictures and the crime scene. We asked the investigators if we could see a picture of the alleged bite wound, in which they responded there were NO pictures of the bite wound.  We asked what the possibility would be of Officer Long being reprimanded for the incident and they stated the investigation would be wrapped up in a few days and we would get a written report, but that it looked like he would be found not in violation, that an officer was allowed to "shoot until the threat is over".  I guess Office Long needs more gun practice if he needs to shoot a 120 pound German Shepherd on a leash 7 times to make sure the threat is over.  We are awaiting the final written report.  I'd like to address a remark about my husband's ex-wfie???  He has no ex-wife so I don't have any idea what that is about or even if he did what it matters in this situation.  Again, thank you to all those who have sent cards, flowers or just stopped by to offer their support and to remind us not to DROP IT and to keep pursuing it, which we intend to do.  Thank you.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Yea, right.  I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the coincidence that this "God Blessed Officer" lived right down the street from Mattia's ex-wife.
> 
> He ain't no damned hero in the community that I live.  He's a coward that blows away dogs.  I'm also wondering why the Mattias haven't chimed in since a couple of days after the immoral act of gunning down a family pet.
> I'm starting to smell more than 1 rat.


 Hey Louie!  Mattia's current wife stated Mattia didn't have an ex-wife.  Want to explain why you and the rest of you lemmings are putting out even more false information.  I am still waiting on the five cases where you are saying Charles County Officers committed crimes.  Bring it Louie.  You like the other here are either a liar, or a fool for putting out mis-information.


----------



## MiMiMi

*Enough is Enough*

I can't believe it.  645 posts about a dog getting shot and hardly anything on the person who who ran over several kids and fled the scene getting released on bond.  I love animals too, but come on.  I feel bad that the dog had to die as I am sure the officer does too, but I don't think that threatening the officer or his family is the right course of action.  And if anyone thinks the owner and son are innocent victims they need to see his "public" record on this web site for the Maryland judiciary system http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp.  He was apparently given another chance for things he has done.  I would think he could do the same for others.


----------



## Vince

This thread is such a waste of space.


----------



## spicy

Vince said:
			
		

> This thread is such a waste of space.


 Yeah right. I read in discovery that the whole internet only weighs as much as a grain of sand.


----------



## MiMiMi

*Why*

Did anyone ever figure out why his son gave this address on the court paperwork if he didn't live there?  Oh that's right.  Because he didn't want them to find him.  I guess then he would have to pay child support.  Imagine that.


----------



## Max's Mom

Why are you reading it and following it then?  Don't waste your time!


----------



## MiMiMi

*Why*

I am merely adding info I think one should consider before hanging this officer out to dry.  I don't think anyone should have the right to wage the "smear campaign" that has been waged against this officer.  No one is saying that the loss of a pet isn't sad and your grief is more than understood.  But to try to ruin a person by putting up signs and bashing the county police.  The families of the kids who were hit by the drugged driver have far more right to be upset and yet they conducted themselves with class when interviewed following her release on bond.  Yes they were made as hell but they chose to be adults and not put down the entire judicial system.  Maybe you could take a lesson from them.


----------



## Max's Mom

I am sure the woman who ran over those poor children will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which she should.  I feel terrible for those families.  We are just trying to make a statement, the police are not always right and they are not above the law.  Things just don't add up.  Our dog was shot.  Yes our son was in the wrong and I feel like he is a deadbeat dad as well.  The police told us 2 shots were fired, then we found 7 bullet casings.  The deputy said he was bite, but no pictures were taken and the ambulance crew said he didn't even need a band aide.  Excessive force was used and the police need to admit when they are wrong.  An apology from Office Long would have gone a long way a month ago.


----------



## heavenly was

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> I am sure the woman who ran over those poor children will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which she should.  I feel terrible for those families.  We are just trying to make a statement, the police are not always right and they are not above the law.  Things just don't add up.  Our dog was shot.  Yes our son was in the wrong and I feel like he is a deadbeat dad as well.  The police told us 2 shots were fired, then we found 7 bullet casings.  The deputy said he was bite, but no pictures were taken and the ambulance crew said he didn't even need a band aide.  Excessive force was used and the police need to admit when they are wrong.  An apology from Office Long would have gone a long way a month ago.


 I agree with you. No matter what the officer should have apologized, maybe not even for shooting the dog, but at least for the fact he had to be shot. Just sorry that it happened. Or at least condolences or something like that.


----------



## tom88

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> I am sure the woman who ran over those poor children will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which she should.  I feel terrible for those families.  We are just trying to make a statement, the police are not always right and they are not above the law.  Things just don't add up.  Our dog was shot.  Yes our son was in the wrong and I feel like he is a deadbeat dad as well.  The police told us 2 shots were fired, then we found 7 bullet casings.  The deputy said he was bite, but no pictures were taken and the ambulance crew said he didn't even need a band aide.  Excessive force was used and the police need to admit when they are wrong.  An apology from Office Long would have gone a long way a month ago.


 Your son should be the one to apologize.  He is the person who caused this.  As far as the ambulance crew sharing information about the officers medical condition, that is unethical and illegal.  So now we have two people you associate committing crimes.  Your son for non-support and the ambulance crew for HIPPA violations.  I felt sorry for you and your dog, but now that I know you are behind this propaganda against this officer I no longer feel sorry for you or your family.  

Now for you being max's mom.  Wasn't Max a dog.  So isn't his mom a b***?


----------



## pixiegirl

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your son should be the one to apologize.  He is the person who caused this.  As far as the ambulance crew sharing information about the officers medical condition, that is unethical and illegal.  So now we have two people you associate committing crimes.  Your son for non-support and the ambulance crew for HIPPA violations.  I felt sorry for you and your dog, but now that I know you are behind this propaganda against this officer I no longer feel sorry for you or your family.
> 
> Now for you being max's mom.  Wasn't Max a dog.  So isn't his mom a b***?



I think your wording is a little harsh but I have to agree with your train of thought.  Max'sMom stated that she thinks her son is a deadbeat.  You are absolutely mailed certain coorespondance when you fall into arrears with child support.  The police had been to their house before looking for the son.  They should have given his whereabouts up.  Had they done that officer Long would not have been at their house that day.  I'm not saying that Officer Long was in the right or justified in shooting Max BUT he came to the house to do his job.  

It was a sad occurance but the Mattia's cast the first stone by putting up signs in their yard.  Officer Long was not given ample opportunity to appologize and after a display like that I don't know many people who would appologize.


----------



## tom88

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> I think your wording is a little harsh but I have to agree with your train of thought.  Max'sMom stated that she thinks her son is a deadbeat.  You are absolutely mailed certain coorespondance when you fall into arrears with child support.  The police had been to their house before looking for the son.  They should have given his whereabouts up.  Had they done that officer Long would not have been at their house that day.  I'm not saying that Officer Long was in the right or justified in shooting Max BUT he came to the house to do his job.
> 
> It was a sad occurance but the Mattia's cast the first stone by putting up signs in their yard.  Officer Long was not given ample opportunity to appologize and after a display like that I don't know many people who would appologize.


 Ok. I am sorry.  Your right I was a bit harsh.  I apologize.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your son should be the one to apologize.  He is the person who caused this.  As far as the ambulance crew sharing information about the officers medical condition, that is unethical and illegal.  So now we have two people you associate committing crimes.  Your son for non-support and the ambulance crew for HIPPA violations.  I felt sorry for you and your dog, but now that I know you are behind this propaganda against this officer I no longer feel sorry for you or your family.
> 
> Now for you being max's mom.  Wasn't Max a dog.  So isn't his mom a b***?




Tom, I beleive you have sunk to the lowsest form possible this time.   You must have really had a bad relationship with your father, did your mother really struggle to raise you.  I am really tired of hearing about the child support issue.  There are a lot of people in this world that really depend on child support and there are people in this world that can raise their kids without the support, but only apply for t to get revenge at the father.  

I beleive that the amublance crew could have stated that the officer barlely needed a band aid.  People do say things in passing and I dont think that anyone would consitute a stupid little statement like he barley needed a bandaid to be at vioaltion of HIPPA.   

You are a jackazz and a disgrace.  I hope everything you have coming to you, you get in full force.  You just remember, what comes around goes around, and karma always finds a way back, whether it be 5 days or 5 years.


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> I think your wording is a little harsh but I have to agree with your train of thought.  Max'sMom stated that she thinks her son is a deadbeat.  You are absolutely mailed certain coorespondance when you fall into arrears with child support.  The police had been to their house before looking for the son.  They should have given his whereabouts up.  Had they done that officer Long would not have been at their house that day.  I'm not saying that Officer Long was in the right or justified in shooting Max BUT he came to the house to do his job.
> 
> It was a sad occurance but the Mattia's cast the first stone by putting up signs in their yard.  Officer Long was not given ample opportunity to appologize and after a display like that I don't know many people who would appologize.




Last time I checked it was a Federal offense to open mail that is addressed to someone else.     Do you know the police have been to the house previously?  I dont think you do, so that is not a fair statement.

The Mattia did not throw the first stone LONG DID WITH THE STUPID COWARD shot at Max.    Officer Long could have apolgized after they put the sign in the yard, that had absoultely no bearing on him NOT saying he was sorry.  

After a display like that, he should have realized how bad he hurt these people and how stupid his actions were and it should have been all the more for him to say "i'm Sorry".


----------



## MiMiMi

*Reply to Max's Mom*

No the police are not always right.  They can't be.  They are just human like everyone else.  They make mistakes like we do.  The difference is every time they do make a mistake it is examined under a microscope by everyone in the county.  I don't know about you, but I would hate to think that every dumb mistake I made would be judged by the entire county.  I agree that Officer Long should have apologized.  But maybe he was told not to contact you while this was being investigated.  And imagine being in his shoes.  No matter what he said it could not bring back your dog.  I don't think any apology he gave would have made anyone feel better at that time.  There was too much pain.  I think he was caught in the middle of a really bad and sad situation.  I just feel that his family seeing a sign depicting their spouse or father as a dog killer is extreme.  Imagine how you would feel as a kid seeing that.  And lastly I would like to comment on a positive note about the Charles County Police.  I have personally witnessed officers doing really great things for animals.  Like helping a mother duck and her ducklings cross Smallwood Drive during high traffic and I have also seen an officer fight back emotions in having to put down an injured animal.  I truly believe they are doing the best they can but that sometimes they are gonna fall short and that is because they aren't perfect.  None of us are.  We just don't have jobs that are in the spotlight like them.


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> Tom, I beleive you have sunk to the lowsest form possible this time.   You must have really had a bad relationship with your father, did your mother really struggle to raise you.  I am really tired of hearing about the child support issue.  There are a lot of people in this world that really depend on child support and there are people in this world that can raise their kids without the support, but only apply for t to get revenge at the father.


JPC never mentioned having a daughter.. it sounds like he homeschooled you.  How's that working out for you?


----------



## chernmax

This isn't the first dog Officer Long has shot, I'd be freakin pissed off also if I came home to find my leashed dog in the back yard shot dead, 7 shell cartriges on the ground, try and present my dogs shot paperwork and still have the body taken away, decapitated and returned without a head.  I don't give a flying f%$k about some crack head in DC plowing through a crowd, this has absolutely nothing to do with that!!!  

Both Federal and State jails house many current or former police officers also.  A badge doesn't change your personal integrity...


----------



## itsbob

chernmax said:
			
		

> This isn't the first dog Officer Long has shot, I'd be freakin pissed off also if I came home to find my leashed dog in the back yard shot dead, 7 shell cartriges on the ground, try and present my dogs shot paperwork and still have the body taken away, decapitated and returned without a head.  I don't give a flying f%$k about some crack head in DC plowing through a crowd, this has absolutely nothing to do with that!!!
> 
> Both Federal and State jails house many current or former police officers also.  A badge doesn't change your personal integrity...


Wow, you're more concerned about a dead dog then dead people.. I'm impressed with your devotion to the lesser species..


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> I beleive that the amublance crew could have stated that the officer barlely needed a band aid.  People do say things in passing and I dont think that anyone would consitute a stupid little statement like he barley needed a bandaid to be at vioaltion of HIPPA.
> 
> .



Wow I'm getting an education this afternoon.. Dogs are more important than people, and postal privacy laws are more important than medical privacy laws..


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> No the police are not always right.  They can't be.  They are just human like everyone else.  They make mistakes like we do.  The difference is every time they do make a mistake it is examined under a microscope by everyone in the county.  I don't know about you, but I would hate to think that every dumb mistake I made would be judged by the entire county.  I agree that Officer Long should have apologized.  But maybe he was told not to contact you while this was being investigated.  And imagine being in his shoes.  No matter what he said it could not bring back your dog.  I don't think any apology he gave would have made anyone feel better at that time.  There was too much pain.  I think he was caught in the middle of a really bad and sad situation.  I just feel that his family seeing a sign depicting their spouse or father as a dog killer is extreme.  Imagine how you would feel as a kid seeing that.  And lastly I would like to comment on a positive note about the Charles County Police.  I have personally witnessed officers doing really great things for animals.  Like helping a mother duck and her ducklings cross Smallwood Drive during high traffic and I have also seen an officer fight back emotions in having to put down an injured animal.  I truly believe they are doing the best they can but that sometimes they are gonna fall short and that is because they aren't perfect.  None of us are.  We just don't have jobs that are in the spotlight like them.



Well I would say that signs and people disliking the police come with being a cop and he cant sheild his family from that.  My suggestion would be that if he had to go to Calvert County not to go over the bridge, then his family wouldnt see it.

And I will second your positive note, I have also witnessed good cops, but the one bad apple makes a big stink.


----------



## dawn

itsbob said:
			
		

> JPC never mentioned having a daughter.. it sounds like he homeschooled you.  How's that working out for you?



Well thank you!

I am sorry, but I am tired of hearing about the child support issue.  That is not what this is about.  So what why Long was there, the point is Long shot and killed Max and max was chained up.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Tom, I beleive you have sunk to the lowsest form possible this time.   You must have really had a bad relationship with your father, did your mother really struggle to raise you.  I am really tired of hearing about the child support issue.  There are a lot of people in this world that really depend on child support and there are people in this world that can raise their kids without the support, but only apply for t to get revenge at the father.
> 
> I beleive that the amublance crew could have stated that the officer barlely needed a band aid.  People do say things in passing and I dont think that anyone would consitute a stupid little statement like he barley needed a bandaid to be at vioaltion of HIPPA.
> 
> You are a jackazz and a disgrace.  I hope everything you have coming to you, you get in full force.  You just remember, what comes around goes around, and karma always finds a way back, whether it be 5 days or 5 years.


 Who cares what you think.  I know that I am a good man who never shares confidential information, who pays more than his child support, who abides by all the laws and respects the police.  The Mattias, instead of filing a complaint and waiting for the investigation to be complete decided to take their fight public by using this venue.  If they can put a white sheet out with red writing for all the world to see, then they had better be thick skinned enough for an opposing view.  

You and Louie and all these other people have put out false information in this post, and you expect the rest of us not to have an opinion contrary to you.  I put my stuff here in the posts, I don't put it in the silly little Karma you geek!

I know what karma will be delivered to me.  Good karma because I am a law abiding good father and good citizen.


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> Last time I checked it was a Federal offense to open mail that is addressed to someone else.     Do you know the police have been to the house previously?  I dont think you do, so that is not a fair statement.
> 
> The Mattia did not throw the first stone LONG DID WITH THE STUPID COWARD shot at Max.    Officer Long could have apolgized after they put the sign in the yard, that had absoultely no bearing on him NOT saying he was sorry.
> 
> After a display like that, he should have realized how bad he hurt these people and how stupid his actions were and it should have been all the more for him to say "i'm Sorry".



They didn't have to open his mail to see the return address on the envelope from either the court or social services.  It's been stated that Officer Long himself had been to the Mattais house and should have been aware of the dog.  It's not worth my time to go find the post.  Go back and read for yourself.

Even if Officer Long was in the wrong in shooting the dog (which we'll never really know) the Mattia's posted that horrid sign and guess what sweetcheeks...  TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!

Personal freaking responsibility.  All parties involved need to take it.  Long took his; he was put under investigation.  I waited to give my opinion until something regarding that investigation was said.  Max'sMom said he won't be charged.  Had they done the right thing off the get their dog may still be alive.


----------



## MiMiMi

chernmax said:
			
		

> This isn't the first dog Officer Long has shot, I'd be freakin pissed off also if I came home to find my leashed dog in the back yard shot dead, 7 shell cartriges on the ground, try and present my dogs shot paperwork and still have the body taken away, decapitated and returned without a head.  I don't give a flying f%$k about some crack head in DC plowing through a crowd, this has absolutely nothing to do with that!!!
> 
> Both Federal and State jails house many current or former police officers also.  A badge doesn't change your personal integrity...


 I seriously doubt that it was the officer's idea to decapitate the dog.  I assume that animal control made that call after seeing that the officer was bit.   And no the crack addict wasn't from DC.  She was from Virginia and the victims were innocent children waiting for their school bus.  If you don't care about that you should.  You can get another dog.  You can't replace your children.  The comparison I was making was that everyone gets mad azt the system sometimes, but we have to find a constructive way to deal with it and go on.


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> Well thank you!
> 
> I am sorry, but I am tired of hearing about the child support issue.  That is not what this is about.  So what why Long was there, the point is Long shot and killed Max and max was chained up.


Like it or not, if the son was doing what the court ordered him to do the wheels would not have been put in motion that caused that officer to be there in the first place.

The son is more to blame for this than the cop.


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Well I would say that signs and people disliking the police come with being a cop and he cant sheild his family from that.  My suggestion would be that if he had to go to Calvert County not to go over the bridge, then his family wouldnt see it.
> 
> And I will second your positive note, I have also witnessed good cops, but the one bad apple makes a big stink.


 I understand that children can't be shielded from everything.  But labeling someone a dog killer in the eyes of a child has to be very traumatic.  Plus the signs were put up before the investigation had been finished.  He should have been given the same right of being innocent until proven guilty that everone else gets.


----------



## chernmax

itsbob said:
			
		

> Like it or not, if the son was doing what the court ordered him to do the wheels would not have been put in motion that caused that officer to be there in the first place.
> 
> The son is more to blame for this than the cop.



Since when did officers have to start issuing warrents through the back yard with a leased dog in it???


----------



## PrchJrkr

chernmax said:
			
		

> Since when did officers have to start issuing warrents through the back yard with a leased dog in it???



Why don't you go back to New Yawk?


----------



## chernmax

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> Why don't you go back to New Yawk?



Because I live here now SMIB!!!!


----------



## dawn

itsbob said:
			
		

> Like it or not, if the son was doing what the court ordered him to do the wheels would not have been put in motion that caused that officer to be there in the first place.
> 
> The son is more to blame for this than the cop.




I agree with you on that, as will I think quite a few people.  The Mattias have also expressed that they beleive their son should do what he is ordered to do.  but the bottom line is the son used the parents address.  It is against the law to open someone elses mail.  Usually court envelopes advise DO NOT FOWARD, so the Mattia may know that yes, their son is getting mail at their house, but they cant open it to see what it is.

But all in all Long made a bad decision that day.  I dont think he said today is the day, I kill.  He just had very bad judgement (we all have on one day or another), but his bad judgement and quick draw mcgraw actions turned the life of a family around.  He should have been in contact with the family.  Yes, the CCSO probably did tell him not to talk, but had he admitted everything out right in the beginning, then it probably wouldnt have gone to this degree.  There would have been no investigation or at least not to the extent of what it is, because the truth would have been told.  But since he has not come forward with the truth, an investigation has to take place to show that he was untruthful with his turn of events.   If in fact he was bitten, I know a photo would have been taken.  Usually cops are very quick to take pictures to document anything, they are trained for that, arent they?  

Long has just gotten away with it in the past, and thought this would be no different.

I praise the Mattias for  doing exactly what they should be doing until they are satisfied with the CCSO.


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I understand that children can't be shielded from everything.  But labeling someone a dog killer in the eyes of a child has to be very traumatic.  Plus the signs were put up before the investigation had been finished.  He should have been given the same right of being innocent until proven guilty that everone else gets.




do you remember the case of the guy that got accused to bombing the Olympics in Georgia.  Didn't he get crucified in the public, before the investigation was complete and didn't his life get ruined because of that arrest and wasn't he let go, uncharged?  

Police do it, so what's good for the goose..


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> do you remember the case of the guy that got accused to bombing the Olympics in Georgia.  Didn't he get crucified in the public, before the investigation was complete and didn't his life get ruined because of that arrest and wasn't he let go, uncharged?
> 
> Police do it, so what's good for the goose..




Again, two wrongs DON'T make a right.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> do you remember the case of the guy that got accused to bombing the Olympics in Georgia.  Didn't he get crucified in the public, before the investigation was complete and didn't his life get ruined because of that arrest and wasn't he let go, uncharged?
> 
> Police do it, so what's good for the goose..


 Yes he did.  Will the Mattias pay the police officer the same amount the guy in Atlanta got after that happened?  It was in the millions.  Your right.  Since you agree with the Mattias after the investigation is complete and the guy is innocent are you going to pay.  Not hardly!


----------



## PrchJrkr

chernmax said:
			
		

> Because I live here now SMIB!!!!



No SMIB here asshat, but I bet your family tree didn't branch too far...


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> do you remember the case of the guy that got accused to bombing the Olympics in Georgia.  Didn't he get crucified in the public, before the investigation was complete and didn't his life get ruined because of that arrest and wasn't he let go, uncharged?
> 
> Police do it, so what's good for the goose..


 The reason the police acted so quickly in the case of the olympic bomber was that it was a matter of public safety.  When there is an imminent threat to public safety they have to act fast.  I hardly think that waiting for the outcome of the investigation would of in any way put anyone in jeopardy.  And I do agree with you on some of your points.  But honestly the mail from the court has the return address on it.  So they may have not been able to open it, but they knew where it was from.


----------



## tom88

chernmax said:
			
		

> Since when did officers have to start issuing warrents through the back yard with a leased dog in it???


 I am not sure what a warrent is, and if the dog was leased, can't they just turn it in for a new model?


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> The reason the police acted so quickly in the case of the olympic bomber was that it was a matter of public safety.  When there is an imminent threat to public safety they have to act fast.  I hardly think that waiting for the outcome of the investigation would of in any way put anyone in jeopardy.  And I do agree with you on some of your points.  But honestly the mail from the court has the return address on it.  So they may have not been able to open it, but they knew where it was from.




Ok they knew where it was from, but then what are they to do with it?  If they write return it to sender, do you really think the courts will stop sending paperwork to their house?  Nope, they continue to send it.  I know first hand.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I am not sure what a warrent is, and if the dog was leased, can't they just turn it in for a new model?




Common sense would tell you what the comment said with out the smart azz comments, tom.


----------



## PrchJrkr

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok they knew where it was from, but then what are they to do with it?  If they write return it to sender, do you really think the courts will stop sending paperwork to their house?  Nope, they continue to send it.  I know first hand.



You're an authority on everything, huh?


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok they knew where it was from, but then what are they to do with it?  If they write return it to sender, do you really think the courts will stop sending paperwork to their house?  Nope, they continue to send it.  I know first hand.


 I can assure you also from experience.  If you call the court and tell them the correct address of the person they are trying to reach they will start sending the mail to that address.  I used to get my brother-in-laws court papers, until I called the court and gave them his new address.  Haven't got anything since.


----------



## itsbob

chernmax said:
			
		

> Since when did officers have to start issuing warrents through the back yard with a leased dog in it???


When you have an expectation of someone doing their job!


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok they knew where it was from, but then what are they to do with it?  If they write return it to sender, do you really think the courts will stop sending paperwork to their house?  Nope, they continue to send it.  I know first hand.


 They also knew where the son was.  Why not tell him to take care of his business, or return it to the court to tell the court where the son lives?  I like my smart azz comments Dawn.

And I am sure you do know what court paperwork looks like.  90% of the population never has to deal with the court system, then there are people like you and the Mattias.  And we wonder why you don't like the police.


----------



## Pandora

Wow, this thread has totally served a great bit of purpose.  I mean seriously, I have more answers now than I started with.   






Don't you people tire of arguing?


----------



## PrchJrkr

tom88 said:
			
		

> They also knew where the son was.  Why not tell him to take care of his business, or return it to the court to tell the court where the son lives?  I like my smart azz comments Dawn.
> 
> And I am sure you do know what court paperwork looks like.  90% of the population never has to deal with the court system, then there are people like you and the Mattias.  And we wonder why you don't like the police.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> They also knew where the son was.  Why not tell him to take care of his business, or return it to the court to tell the court where the son lives?  I like my smart azz comments Dawn.
> 
> And I am sure you do know what court paperwork looks like.  90% of the population never has to deal with the court system, then there are people like you and the Mattias.  And we wonder why you don't like the police.



Yes, they did know where their son was.  They have already stated that they did tell him to take care of his business.  I think that when you call to the court to discuss a case, you usually need a case number in order to discuss it (that has been my experience in the past), so if they cant open the mail how are they to get the case number?

Yes Tom I do know what paper work from the courts look like, but I can assure you just as much as you are a fool, I have never ever ever ever ever ever been on the defendant side of any case (oops, wait a minute, i have gotten a couple of tickets before), but other than that, I have walked a straight line, thank you very flippin much.  so before you start to discredit people look in the mirror and shut the flip up.   I have been a total upstanding citzen of Maryland for the past _____ years and quite proud.  Now you on the other hand......


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Yes, they did know where their son was.  They have already stated that they did tell him to take care of his business.  I think that when you call to the court to discuss a case, you usually need a case number in order to discuss it (that has been my experience in the past), so if they cant open the mail how are they to get the case number?
> 
> Yes Tom I do know what paper work from the courts look like, but I can assure you just as much as you are a fool, I have never ever ever ever ever ever been on the defendant side of any case (oops, wait a minute, i have gotten a couple of tickets before), but other than that, I have walked a straight line, thank you very flippin much.  so before you start to discredit people look in the mirror and shut the flip up.   I have been a total upstanding citzen of Maryland for the past _____ years and quite proud.  Now you on the other hand......


 I think they could track the case by the name especially since that isn't a usual name like Smith or Jones.  Also, I think that prosecuting mail tampering would be impossible since it came to your home.  I can also guarantee that if my children started receiving mail from the courts at my address they would have some explaining to do.  And I don't mean merely telling them to please take care of it.  They would be on the phone to the courthouse with the case number giving them the correct address.  I would back my kids to the death, but if they pointed the police to me I would point them right back.


----------



## Pandora

Pandora said:
			
		

> Don't you people tire of arguing?




Why, no they don't Pandora.


----------



## chernmax

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that it was the officer's idea to decapitate the dog.  I assume that animal control made that call after seeing that the officer was bit.   And no the crack addict wasn't from DC.  She was from Virginia and the victims were innocent children waiting for their school bus.  If you don't care about that you should.  You can get another dog.  You can't replace your children.  The comparison I was making was that everyone gets mad azt the system sometimes, but we have to find a constructive way to deal with it and go on.



I have a deep concern for the victims of that crazed crack headed b!tch, what you fail to realize is you're trying to dilute this incident by bringing up that incident and then try and compare people with animals to make someone hurting from their loss feel better.  Hey, I heard in Iraq today a truck bomb killed 75 people and wounded hundreds, I guess that makes the crack head story less relevant now!!!


----------



## heavenly was

Pandora said:
			
		

> Why, no they don't Pandora.


 I didnt awnser because I thought it was pretty self explanatory.


----------



## heavenly was

chernmax said:
			
		

> I have a deep concern for the victims of that crazed crack headed b!tch, what you fail to realize is you're trying to dilute this incident by bringing up that incident and then try and compare people with animals to make someone hurting from their loss feel better.  Hey, I heard in Iraq today a truck bomb killed 75 people and wounded hundreds, I guess that makes the crack head story less relevant now!!!



Was the truck on a lease?


----------



## chernmax

itsbob said:
			
		

> When you have an expectation of someone doing their job!



And obviously doing it with poor judgement...


----------



## chernmax

heavenly was said:
			
		

> Was the truck on a lease?



Sorry, couldn't tell from the picture of the crater and dead bodies everywhere...


----------



## chernmax

tom88 said:
			
		

> I am not sure what a warrent is, and if the dog was leased, can't they just turn it in for a new model?



It's your dumba$$ question, why don't you ask them...


----------



## chernmax

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> No SMIB here asshat, but I bet your family tree didn't branch too far...



LOL, you got one big button to push obviously, hahahahahahahahahahaaaaa


----------



## MiMiMi

chernmax said:
			
		

> I have a deep concern for the victims of that crazed crack headed b!tch, what you fail to realize is you're trying to dilute this incident by bringing up that incident and then try and compare people with animals to make someone hurting from their loss feel better.  Hey, I heard in Iraq today a truck bomb killed 75 people and wounded hundreds, I guess that makes the crack head story less relevant now!!!


 I am not trying to dilute anything.  I am simply saying that there are worse things in the world.  Yes losing a pet is painful no disputing that.  But at some point we have to recognize this for what it is.  A sad situation.  Nothing sinister just sad.  And no I am not trying to make anyone feel better about this.  I honestly don't think the family wants to feel better.  They want to keep this going so they can eventually file a lawsuit against the county.  And then Charles County taxpayers can not only pay for their grandchildren that their father doesn't support they can pay for this frivolous lawsuit just to find out what we already know.


----------



## Mark_Disfree

Someone should post this to this police forum.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/


----------



## PrchJrkr

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I am not trying to dilute anything.  I am simply saying that there are worse things in the world.  Yes losing a pet is painful no disputing that.  But at some point we have to recognize this for what it is.  A sad situation.  Nothing sinister just sad.  And no I am not trying to make anyone feel better about this.  I honestly don't think the family wants to feel better.  They want to keep this going so they can eventually file a lawsuit against the county.  And then Charles County taxpayers can not only pay for their grandchildren that their father doesn't support they can pay for this frivolous lawsuit just to find out what we already know.



 Not to mention all the costs for due process for their alleged crimes.


----------



## chernmax

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I am not trying to dilute anything.  I am simply saying that there are worse things in the world.  Yes losing a pet is painful no disputing that.  But at some point we have to recognize this for what it is.  A sad situation.  Nothing sinister just sad.  And no I am not trying to make anyone feel better about this.  I honestly don't think the family wants to feel better.  They want to keep this going so they can eventually file a lawsuit against the county.  And then Charles County taxpayers can not only pay for their grandchildren that their father doesn't support they can pay for this frivolous lawsuit just to find out what we already know.



It may not be on the grand scale of things that are happening in this world, however it seems to be consuming you and frankly, I don't see anything frivolous if a lawsuit is filed... 

They should be awarded an apology, a new dog and make the officer clean  up his spent shell cartridges in the back yard...


----------



## MiMiMi

chernmax said:
			
		

> It may not be on the grand scale of things that are happening in this world, however it seems to be consuming you and frankly, I don't see anything frivolous if a lawsuit is filed...
> 
> They should be awarded an apology, a new dog and make the officer clean  up his spent shell cartridges in the back yard...


 Not consuming ridiculous.  And maybe you can pick up the tab on the lawsuit since you don't think it is frivilous.  I opt out.


----------



## Woodyspda

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Not consuming ridiculous.  And maybe you can pick up the tab on the lawsuit since you don't think it is frivilous.  I opt out.



Maybe if you elected a decent Sheriff you wouldn't have to worry about those "frivolous" lawsuits.....


----------



## PrchJrkr

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Maybe if you elected a decent Sheriff you wouldn't have to worry about those "frivolous" lawsuits.....



Oh, now the Sheriff is at fault? Here we you on another tangent...


----------



## camily

For the love of God. I'm going to call Chris and ask him to come over here and shoot ME if this damn thread doesn't end.


----------



## heavenly was

camily said:
			
		

> For the love of God. I'm going to call Chris and ask him to come over here and shoot ME if this damn thread doesn't end.



Then you would post a sign in your yard saying CCSD shot me?


----------



## Woodyspda

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> Oh, now the Sheriff is at fault? Here we you on another tangent...



It was his deputy that discharged the weapon....correct???? responsibility rolls uphill..... and the citizens of Charles county elected the gentleman.


----------



## camily

heavenly was said:
			
		

> Then you would post a sign in your yard saying CCSD shot me?


No, it would say "I sacrificed my body for the good of somd.com. Thanks CCSD". Then Maybe Vrai would pay for the arrangements for the free publicity. 





:nochanceinhell:


----------



## MiMiMi

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Maybe if you elected a decent Sheriff you wouldn't have to worry about those "frivolous" lawsuits.....


 I really hope you don't think that the Sheriff is to blame for this.  He can only work with what he has.  He can't be with every officer every minute of the day.   You can't blame the head of a company for what their employees do.  People have freewill and no one can control another persons actions.


----------



## heavenly was

camily said:
			
		

> No, it would say "I sacrificed my body for the good of somd.com. Thanks CCSD". Then Maybe Vrai would pay for the arrangements for the free publicity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :nochanceinhell:



What is so bad with a little argument? If you don't like it don't come?


----------



## camily

heavenly was said:
			
		

> What is so bad with a little argument? If you don't like it don't come?


I do like it, and I do come. Wait a minute, are we off topic now?


----------



## camily

heavenly was said:
			
		

> What is so bad with a little argument? If you don't like it don't come?


I'm glad with your 37 posts you have me all figured out.


----------



## heavenly was

camily said:
			
		

> I do like it, and I do come. Wait a minute, are we off topic now?



But you said you wanted this thread to die


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 06-19-2007 03:28 PM I am really starting to hate you.  


To my Karma giver  -- I AM SO SURE THE FEELING IS MUTUAL!


----------



## heavenly was

camily said:
			
		

> I'm glad with your 37 posts you have me all figured out.



I don't need any posts to figure anybody out. Except for one.


----------



## camily

heavenly was said:
			
		

> But you said you wanted this thread to die


No.....I said end. Not "die like max" as you originally said before you edited it.


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I am not trying to dilute anything.  I am simply saying that there are worse things in the world.  Yes losing a pet is painful no disputing that.  But at some point we have to recognize this for what it is.  A sad situation.  Nothing sinister just sad.  And no I am not trying to make anyone feel better about this.  I honestly don't think the family wants to feel better.  They want to keep this going so they can eventually file a lawsuit against the county.  And then Charles County taxpayers can not only pay for their grandchildren that their father doesn't support they can pay for this frivolous lawsuit just to find out what we already know.



Well I am a tax payer and not only do I pay for the grandchild that the father doesnt pay support for, but I ALSO PAY FOR CHRISTOPHER LONGS paycheck.

I, for one, would not mind seeing that my taxes pay for a law suit if the Mattias filed one.


----------



## camily

heavenly was said:
			
		

> I don't need any posts to figure anybody out. Except for one.


Can you really figure anyone out by posts? Only rack'm. He's exactly the same. Lubs me some rack'm.


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> Well I am a tax payer and not only do I pay for the grandchild that the father doesnt pay support for, but I ALSO PAY FOR CHRISTOPHER LONGS paycheck.
> 
> I, for one, would not mind seeing that my taxes pay for a law suit if the Mattias filed one.


Glad you fixed that. It was bugging me.


----------



## heavenly was

camily said:
			
		

> No.....I said end. Not "die like max" as you originally said before you edited it.



What i said was in poor taste. And I changed it about 5 seconds after I posted it. Do you just sit on the refresh or what?


----------



## pixiegirl

heavenly was said:
			
		

> What i said was in poor taste. And I changed it about 5 seconds after I posted it. Do you just sit on the refresh or what?



I do! I do!


----------



## heavenly was

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> I do! I do!



Oh well I guess that's ok.


----------



## Woodyspda

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I really hope you don't think that the Sheriff is to blame for this.  He can only work with what he has.  He can't be with every officer every minute of the day.   You can't blame the head of a company for what their employees do.  People have freewill and no one can control another persons actions.



You obviously have never been in the military or any other organization that required discipline.

CEO's are regularly fired for their company's poor performance. (some are paid despite the fact which is an injustice currently being fought in the media)


----------



## camily

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> I do! I do!


teeheehee. Obviously they don't know about the subscription to a thread thingy.


----------



## pixiegirl

heavenly was said:
			
		

> Oh well I guess that's ok.



k_jo says I can do whatever I want.


----------



## camily

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> k_jo says I can do whatever I want.


And K_jo answers to me. And I answer to Mainman, who answers to rack'm. He answers to TWL's wife. :killiingme:


----------



## MiMiMi

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> You obviously have never been in the military or any other organization that required discipline.
> 
> CEO's are regularly fired for their company's poor performance. (some are paid despite the fact which is an injustice currently being fought in the media)


 Actually I think any job requires discipline.  From what I have seen the only actions I think a company can hold the CEO liable for are ones they should have known about or did know about and didn't stop.  And the poor performance of a company is not the same as a single individual acting alone.  The only thing that anyone in charge can do is investigate the situation afterwards and if needed put into place steps to try to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again.  You can't read people's minds and know what they are going to do and when.


----------



## chernmax

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Not consuming ridiculous.  And maybe you can pick up the tab on the lawsuit since you don't think it is frivilous.  I opt out.



I live in St Mary's county, sorry your dime...


----------



## MiMiMi

chernmax said:
			
		

> I live in St Mary's county, sorry your dime...


 Should of known.


----------



## chernmax

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Should of known.



Should of known what? You think the freakin elite live in Calvert, please get a life!!!  I looked at 5 different homes in Calvert when I moved here and none were as nice as the beautiful home I purchased here and I don't have to deal with the backed up bridge to/from work everyday...


----------



## MiMiMi

chernmax said:
			
		

> Should of known what? You think the freakin elite live in Calvert, please get a life!!!  I looked at 5 different homes in Calvert when I moved here and none were as nice as the beautiful home I purchased here and I don't have to deal with the backed up bridge to/from work everyday...


 Who freakin lives in Calvert County?  I don't. And I don't need to get a life I have a life.  And although you seem so willing to jump to the wrong conclusion.  I posted the "Should have known" comment because I thought the "Displaced New Yorker" meant you were military and I therefore assumed you worked at Pax River.


----------



## dmh

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Should of known.




MiMiMi probably lives at Idlewood or Glespie trailer park.


----------



## MiMiMi

dmh said:
			
		

> MiMiMi probably lives at Idlewood or Glespie trailer park.


 That would be a step up from your  place.


----------



## chernmax

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Who freakin lives in Calvert County?  I don't. And I don't need to get a life I have a life.  And although you seem so willing to jump to the wrong conclusion.  I posted the "Should have known" comment because I thought the "Displaced New Yorker" meant you were military and I therefore assumed you worked at Pax River.



Well don't get all huffy...   

I'm retired military (24yrs) and work for a private firm that supports the government but not on Pax. You almost thought correctly... 

Anyway MiMiMi, I don't mind a good debate, welcome to the boards but I have to go run some errands now...


----------



## calamity jane

Speaking of lawsuits, suppose Deputy Long decides to bring a suit for defamation of character (libel), since he was called a murderer and his name besmirched on that sign on the road and in the newspaper. His children could have suffered damages by being exposed to it. 
Just another point of view.


----------



## pingrr

calamity jane said:
			
		

> Speaking of lawsuits, suppose Deputy Long decides to bring a suit for defamation of character (libel), since he was called a murderer and his name besmirched on that sign on the road and in the newspaper. His children could have suffered damages by being exposed to it.
> Just another point of view.



In order to have a defamation suit,  Long would have to prove that the family was intentionally calling him a murderer even though they did not believe this to be true for the sole purpose of making Long look bad.

In this case it is pretty clear that the family truly believes that Long unjustly killed their dog.  If they believe Long murdered their dog they have every rite to make a sign stating that.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Well I am a tax payer and not only do I pay for the grandchild that the father doesnt pay support for, but I ALSO PAY FOR CHRISTOPHER LONGS paycheck.
> 
> I, for one, would not mind seeing that my taxes pay for a law suit if the Mattias filed one.


 Well the Hero Long needs a raise to have to put up with the likes of you!  What profession are you in?  I bet we pay your paycheck too!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well the Hero Long needs a raise to have to put up with the likes of you!  What profession are you in?  I be we pay your paycheck too!





Well if you thing Long is a hero, enough said.  I can not attack someone that lacks character.   

With that said, my taxes probably pay for the mental disability check that comes to your mailbox every month as well.  

Sorry, Mr. Tom, I work as a paralegal in a law in washington dc and I am also a real estate agent that works in Montgomery County, plus I am a licensed real estate agent in DC and Virginia.  So no, sorry to dissapoint, but I can not be placed in the same catagory at you.  I have skills and schooling that I can rely on to help me through life, so therefore I would never rely on tax payers monies to suffice as income.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Well if you thing Long is a hero, enough said.  I can not attack someone that lacks character.
> 
> With that said, my taxes probably pay for the mental disability check that comes to your mailbox every month as well.
> 
> Sorry, Mr. Tom, I work as a paralegal in a law in washington dc and I am also a real estate agent that works in Montgomery County, plus I am a licensed real estate agent in DC and Virginia.  So no, sorry to dissapoint, but I can not be placed in the same catagory at you.  I have skills and schooling that I can rely on to help me through life, so therefore I would never rely on tax payers monies to suffice as income.


 Yea, Long is my hero.   Anybody who puts on a badge and gun for fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year, and chases after people who are wanted by the court system, is my hero.  

As I served my country, they are serving their community and am proud of them for that.  As I said in my very first post, I am not sure what happened to that dog.  I don't know because I wasn't there.  However, you and the rest of the people putting out mis-information on this post caused me to defend this person because of your obvious persecution before the event was investigated.  Shame on all of you!  

The b.s. about the rescue squad saying he only needed a band aid.  What the hell would that mean anyway.  Should he only have shot the dog if he were being mauled?  Would you want someone to kill an animal attacking you or your child only after it sufficiently hurt you?  If the ambulance crew did say that shame on them.  First they violated a law, which you pointed out earlier was no big deal.  That is wrong.  Any privacy information violated is a huge violation.

It is obvious you are a Montgomery County Liberal, or a Montgomery County Want a Be.  Well here in Southern Maryland we still respect authority.  So either go back or stay in Montgomery County.

Now put out some more lies about what police do wrong dawn...and by the way, I don't really care about that red or green karma, but if you and your cloneys are doing have the fortitude to sign it so I know who to respond to.  Quite the cowardly thing to do.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yea, Long is my hero.   Anybody who puts on a badge and gun for fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year, and chases after people who are wanted by the court system, is my hero.
> 
> As I served my country, they are serving their community and am proud of them for that.  As I said in my very first post, I am not sure what happened to that dog.  I don't know because I wasn't there.  However, you and the rest of the people putting out mis-information on this post caused me to defend this person because of your obvious persecution before the event was investigated.  Shame on all of you!
> 
> The b.s. about the rescue squad saying he only needed a band aid.  What the hell would that mean anyway.  Should he only have shot the dog if he were being mauled?  Would you want someone to kill an animal attacking you or your child only after it sufficiently hurt you?  If the ambulance crew did say that shame on them.  First they violated a law, which you pointed out earlier was no big deal.  That is wrong.  Any privacy information violated is a huge violation.
> 
> It is obvious you are a Montgomery County Liberal, or a Montgomery County Want a Be.  Well here in Southern Maryland we still respect authority.  So either go back or stay in Montgomery County.
> 
> Now put out some more lies about what police do wrong dawn...and by the way, I don't really care about that red or green karma, but if you and your cloneys are doing have the fortitude to sign it so I know who to respond to.  Quite the cowardly thing to do.



Ok, I will say that I dont classify a police officer as my hero, but I do say I will give them kudos for the work that they do, until a bad apple comes along and spoils the bunch.  

Good for you serving your country, as did my husband.     

No we weren't there, but just as much as I am taking the Mattias word for what happened you are taking Longs word to the same extent.  And for the record, you are taking the word of a three (3) time dog killer as truth.    No we don't know what happened, but as much as you want to defend Long based upon his words, I will defend the Mattias based upon their words.  It appears to me that you have persecuted the Mattias just as much as Long, the only difference is Long has a background of killing dogs.........

It may or may not be b.s. about the rescue squad saying he needed a band-aid.  If there was a true puncture wound, I believe that CCSO would have photographed the wound if not for anything but their own files.    I don't see that it would be a violation of the privacy law to just make off the record comment, that the officer was barley scratched, that could have been merely an observation comment.  

I do not live in Montgomery County, never have and never plan too.  When I started selling real estate that is were I was told the money was, and sure thing that is where the money is, so that is where I chose to specialize.  I only do it part time, so it fits in my schedule well.    I don't know that I want to say I am proud of it, but I live in Southern Maryland.  Also, I do respect authority, when authority deserves respect.  Just because you are an officer and you carry a badge, does not grant you to have any more respect than the next person.  You have to earn it, and I am sorry to say that all police officers do not deserve respect, and Officer Long is one of them.

So Tom, before your crucify us for taking Joe and Sharon's side of the story, you should think, --- you are taking Longs story as truth and why, just because he is a police officer.  Well I am sorry, but police officers have a tendency to believe they are above the law and that it doesn't apply to them and I believe in this instance that Long is one of those officers, so I will 100 percent stick by the Mattias side until the end.


----------



## calamity jane

The police have my respect as well. I would'nt want to do that job for any amount of money. Yet there they are, ready to put their life on the line if need be, for any and all of us, even those who hate and disrespect them so much. They are not paid enough. 

Deputy Long was doing his job that day, trying to serve a warrant. In the process of checking the residence of record for anyone home, he encountered a dog, who was also doing his job that day. 
It probably caused him much sorrow to have to kill the dog, but he had the right to defend himself against attack.


----------



## Dork

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok, I will say that I dont classify a police officer as my hero, but I do say I will give them kudos for the work that they do, until a bad apple comes along and spoils the bunch.
> 
> Good for you serving your country, as did my husband.
> 
> No we weren't there, but just as much as I am taking the Mattias word for what happened you are taking Longs word to the same extent.  And for the record, you are taking the word of a three (3) time dog killer as truth.    No we don't know what happened, but as much as you want to defend Long based upon his words, I will defend the Mattias based upon their words.  It appears to me that you have persecuted the Mattias just as much as Long, the only difference is Long has a background of killing dogs.........
> 
> It may or may not be b.s. about the rescue squad saying he needed a band-aid.  If there was a true puncture wound, I believe that CCSO would have photographed the wound if not for anything but their own files.    I don't see that it would be a violation of the privacy law to just make off the record comment, that the officer was barley scratched, that could have been merely an observation comment.
> 
> I do not live in Montgomery County, never have and never plan too.  When I started selling real estate that is were I was told the money was, and sure thing that is where the money is, so that is where I chose to specialize.  I only do it part time, so it fits in my schedule well.    I don't know that I want to say I am proud of it, but I live in Southern Maryland.  Also, I do respect authority, when authority deserves respect.  Just because you are an officer and you carry a badge, does not grant you to have any more respect than the next person.  You have to earn it, and I am sorry to say that all police officers do not deserve respect, and Officer Long is one of them.
> 
> So Tom, before your crucify us for taking Joe and Sharon's side of the story, you should think, --- you are taking Longs story as truth and why, just because he is a police officer.  Well I am sorry, but police officers have a tendency to believe they are above the law and that it doesn't apply to them and I believe in this instance that Long is one of those officers, so I will 100 percent stick by the Mattias side until the end.



Are you two still at it?  Come on Dawn. Just admit that Tom is right and move on.  Oh, is anyone actually reading these posts besides Tom and Dawn?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok, I will say that I dont classify a police officer as my hero, but I do say I will give them kudos for the work that they do, until a bad apple comes along and spoils the bunch.
> 
> Good for you serving your country, as did my husband.
> 
> No we weren't there, but just as much as I am taking the Mattias word for what happened you are taking Longs word to the same extent.  And for the record, you are taking the word of a three (3) time dog killer as truth.    No we don't know what happened, but as much as you want to defend Long based upon his words, I will defend the Mattias based upon their words.  It appears to me that you have persecuted the Mattias just as much as Long, the only difference is Long has a background of killing dogs.........
> 
> It may or may not be b.s. about the rescue squad saying he needed a band-aid.  If there was a true puncture wound, I believe that CCSO would have photographed the wound if not for anything but their own files.    I don't see that it would be a violation of the privacy law to just make off the record comment, that the officer was barley scratched, that could have been merely an observation comment.
> 
> I do not live in Montgomery County, never have and never plan too.  When I started selling real estate that is were I was told the money was, and sure thing that is where the money is, so that is where I chose to specialize.  I only do it part time, so it fits in my schedule well.    I don't know that I want to say I am proud of it, but I live in Southern Maryland.  Also, I do respect authority, when authority deserves respect.  Just because you are an officer and you carry a badge, does not grant you to have any more respect than the next person.  You have to earn it, and I am sorry to say that all police officers do not deserve respect, and Officer Long is one of them.
> 
> So Tom, before your crucify us for taking Joe and Sharon's side of the story, you should think, --- you are taking Longs story as truth and why, just because he is a police officer.  Well I am sorry, but police officers have a tendency to believe they are above the law and that it doesn't apply to them and I believe in this instance that Long is one of those officers, so I will 100 percent stick by the Mattias side until the end.


 I have asked time and time again, to explain what the circumstances behind him shooting two other dogs were.  Cops kill dogs for humanitarian reasons all the time.  If he did shoot two other dogs for the same reason he shot the Mattias dog, you people would have been all over it which makes me think it was for humanitarian reasons and by you keep saying it is another way to mislead people.

I believe the cops should be given the benefit of doubt.  But answer my question, should he have been mauled before killing the dog.  You said he had "barely a scratch" doesn't that mean the dog attacked?


----------



## tom88

I know your going to say he could have scratched himself on something else, which is conjuncture, but you don't want to think the dog could have attacked so that is what you CHOOSE to believe.  That is true evidence the guy had to be treated.

The long and short of it is, Long did nothing wrong, will not be punished and will soon get a raise.  (I believe 2%) come July.  Also, he will be promoted and carry out his duties until he retires at a handsome rate.

Live with it Dawn...


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I know your going to say he could have scratched himself on something else, which is conjuncture, but you don't want to think the dog could have attacked so that is what you CHOOSE to believe.  That is true evidence the guy had to be treated.
> 
> The long and short of it is, Long did nothing wrong, will not be punished and will soon get a raise.  (I believe 2%) come July.  Also, he will be promoted and carry out his duties until he retires at a handsome rate.
> 
> Live with it Dawn...




where is the evidence that he HAD to be treated??? because an ambulance was called?  nice try tom, if he called in that he was attacked, of course they are going to send an ambulance.  We have no evidence that he HAD to be treated.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I have asked time and time again, to explain what the circumstances behind him shooting two other dogs were.  Cops kill dogs for humanitarian reasons all the time.  If he did shoot two other dogs for the same reason he shot the Mattias dog, you people would have been all over it which makes me think it was for humanitarian reasons and by you keep saying it is another way to mislead people.
> 
> I believe the cops should be given the benefit of doubt.  But answer my question, should he have been mauled before killing the dog.  You said he had "barely a scratch" doesn't that mean the dog attacked?




Considering the dog had no history of attacking and Long had a history of killing, one would beleive that Long is a bit trigger happy that likes to use his badge as shield to protect himself.  

Because the dog barked  that is a reason to say he was going to attack.  what consitutes an attack which warrants to be shot?   What does a dog have to do to be considered agreessive enough to shoot?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Considering the dog had no history of attacking and Long had a history of killing, one would beleive that Long is a bit trigger happy that likes to use his badge as shield to protect himself.
> 
> Because the dog barked  that is a reason to say he was going to attack.  what consitutes an attack which warrants to be shot?   What does a dog have to do to be considered agreessive enough to shoot?


 bark and attack where the cop needs a band aid?  Tell me..would you want a cop to shoot a dog if it were attacking a baby, but had just begun the attack.  How long should the cop wait?  Till the baby needs stiches?  Till the baby is dead?  You tell me?


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> bark and attack where the cop needs a band aid?  Tell me..would you want a cop to shoot a dog if it were attacking a baby, but had just begun the attack.  How long should the cop wait?  Till the baby needs stiches?  Till the baby is dead?  You tell me?




This was not an aggressive dog call time.  There was no baby.  This is about a grown or not so grown man that was on the dogs property to serve a warrant.  The dog has no history of being aggressive.  Long has a history of killing dogs.  

You tell me what constitutes attack, does a dog barking constitute an attack? Does a dog tied to a chain constitute being aggressive enough to attack?

My opinion of an attack would be the dog charging after me (if he was not tied), if the dog is tied, my common sense would be to stay away.  

The dog would have barked at the cop when he pulled up in the driveway, common sense should have prevailed on Long.  If no one answers three fricken doors at the house, there appears to be no movement in the house, no television or radio is on, you peek through windows, why in gods name do you need to walk around the back of the house to check one last door.  This guys reputation proceeds him and unfortunately for Long, his reputation is not a good one


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> where is the evidence that he HAD to be treated??? because an ambulance was called?  nice try tom, if he called in that he was attacked, of course they are going to send an ambulance.  We have no evidence that he HAD to be treated.


 You said he had to be treated that it was "barely a scratch"!


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Considering the dog had no history of attacking and Long had a history of killing, one would beleive that Long is a bit trigger happy that likes to use his badge as shield to protect himself.
> 
> Because the dog barked  that is a reason to say he was going to attack.  what consitutes an attack which warrants to be shot?   What does a dog have to do to be considered agreessive enough to shoot?


 Will you please tell me the circumstances surrounding Long shooting the other dogs.  Answer that and I will go away!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> You said he had to be treated that it was "barely a scratch"!




Ok, but show me where he HAD to be treated.  I say he was a wimp and called for the ambulance because he got himself in too deep and was trying to find a way out, i.e., he used excessive force, the son came home, startled Long, he needed to come up with story faster than anticipated, did not confront son when son came home, long was releived that son left to take dog to vet and then long put his ill and quickly thought of plan in motion -- called in to say that he was attacked and had to shoot to protect himself, protocol to send amublance (?) dont know, dont care, maybe Long requested one, again dont know dont care.  There is no eveidence that he HAD to be treated, there is only evidence that Long got in an ambulance.  There is not one single photo, apparently, so no evidence that HE HAD to be treated.  

Tom there is a big difference between having to be treated and wanted to try to cover your butt.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Will you please tell me the circumstances surrounding Long shooting the other dogs.  Answer that and I will go away!




I dont know.  I wish I did, but one would think that it they were agressive dog attacks then that surely would have come out by now, dont you think.

Point is, it was made of record on the news quoted by a CCSD official that this was Long's third animal related killing.  No one pulled this one out of a hat.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Ok, but show me where he HAD to be treated.  I say he was a wimp and called for the ambulance because he got himself in too deep and was trying to find a way out, i.e., he used excessive force, the son came home, startled Long, he needed to come up with story faster than anticipated, did not confront son when son came home, long was releived that son left to take dog to vet and then long put his ill and quickly thought of plan in motion -- called in to say that he was attacked and had to shoot to protect himself, protocol to send amublance (?) dont know, dont care, maybe Long requested one, again dont know dont care.  There is no eveidence that he HAD to be treated, there is only evidence that Long got in an ambulance.  There is not one single photo, apparently, so no evidence that HE HAD to be treated.
> 
> Tom there is a big difference between having to be treated and wanted to try to cover your butt.


 And there is no evidence the dog didn't attack him!  Please tell me the circumstances surrounding the alleged shooting of the two other dogs.  You are partially relying on these events to convict Long.  What are the circumstances?  Tell me please?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> I dont know.  I wish I did, but one would think that it they were agressive dog attacks then that surely would have come out by now, dont you think.
> 
> Point is, it was made of record on the news quoted by a CCSD official that this was Long's third animal related killing.  No one pulled this one out of a hat.


 People kill animals for humanitarian reasons.  Dont you think if the dogs were killed for any other reason than humanitarian this would be all over the news.  Long is right.   Nothing will happen to him.  Live with it!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> And there is no evidence the dog didn't attack him!  Please tell me the circumstances surrounding the alleged shooting of the two other dogs.  You are partially relying on these events to convict Long.  What are the circumstances?  Tell me please?




If Long was attacked a and/or several photographs would have been taken of Longs alledge bite.   

What I am relying on, is one you are correct his history, two the fact that Long alledgely lied about how many shots he released and three that I honestly do not believe that the sherriff would made a personal visit himself to view the photos or the scene of the attack, if in fact Long has visable wounds that would consitute him shooting and killing the dog.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> People kill animals for humanitarian reasons.  Dont you think if the dogs were killed for any other reason than humanitarian this would be all over the news.  Long is right.   Nothing will happen to him.  Live with it!



Exactly Tom, animals are killed for humanitarian reasons and animals are also killed because of some people that are just plain jerks.  

You ask don't you think if dogs were killed for any other reason other than humanitarian it would be all over the news.  It was not a humanitarian reason, Tom, that is why it  was all over the news.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> If Long was attacked a and/or several photographs would have been taken of Longs alledge bite.
> 
> What I am relying on, is one you are correct his history, two the fact that Long alledgely lied about how many shots he released and three that I honestly do not believe that the sherriff would made a personal visit himself to view the photos or the scene of the attack, if in fact Long has visable wounds that would consitute him shooting and killing the dog.


 So by your logic, since the Sheriff visited he thinks Long is wrong.  So why isn't Long punished?  Perhaps because he did nothing wrong.  Maybe the Sheriff visited because the Mattias have a ridiculous sign in front of their house!


----------



## FrankBama1234

Published - June, 18, 2007  

Indiana woman killed by pet dog
 CONNERSVILLE, Ind. (AP) � A 1-year-old dog turned on its owner, killing her with bites to her throat and arm, authorities said. 

Phyllis G. Carroll, 63, bled to death after being mauled by one of her two black chow mix dogs Sunday, said Fayette County Coroner Joe Todd. 

Carroll kept the dogs, a male and female from the same litter, in the yard behind her home. There were no witnesses, but Todd said authorities believed it was the 
male, the larger of the two, that attacked Carroll. 

Friends said Carroll had become increasingly afraid of the aggressive dogs, Todd said. 

�In 34 years of investigating deaths I have never, ever had a vicious animal attack that resulted in the death of the victim,� he said. 

Both animals will be destroyed at the request of the victim�s family, he said. 

Connersville is about 45 miles east of Indianapolis.


Saw this on the news today....no dogs are vicious and not dangerous. Long should have let the dog bite and maul him, then Dawn would think the dog is a hero!!


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Exactly Tom, animals are killed for humanitarian reasons and animals are also killed because of some people that are just plain jerks.
> 
> You ask don't you think if dogs were killed for any other reason other than humanitarian it would be all over the news.  It was not a humanitarian reason, Tom, that is why it  was all over the news.


 It wasn't all over the news.  The only place I heard was here.  It may have been in one newscast and that was it!  No follow up by any broadcasters.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Considering the dog had no history of attacking and Long had a history of killing, one would beleive that Long is a bit trigger happy that likes to use his badge as shield to protect himself.
> 
> Because the dog barked  that is a reason to say he was going to attack.  what consitutes an attack which warrants to be shot?   What does a dog have to do to be considered agreessive enough to shoot?


Ask the Mattia's neighbor about Max. He may have an interesting story to tell you. Also, ask to see his scar.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> So by your logic, since the Sheriff visited he thinks Long is wrong.  So why isn't Long punished?  Perhaps because he did nothing wrong.  Maybe the Sheriff visited because the Mattias have a ridiculous sign in front of their house!



I doubt very seriously the sheriff made the visit because of the sign.  I for one think that was a great way to have people realize what type of loser that CCSO has on the force.  I think it is great and I praise them for have the courage to stand up for what they believe it, rather than just sit a computer and remain anonymous through posting.     I honestly believe that Long has used the same "attack" scenario in the past and I think that it has been swept under the carpet because there was either no complaint because the people whose dog was kill was either to stupid to do file a complaint or too afraid to go against the CCSO.  I don't know, but the fact that the Mattias have the b______s to do so, it may have made the office open their eyes and realize that they may have person on the force that is not standing up to the oath he took.   If it was a cut and dry situation and Long had any kind of serious puncture wound, the case surely would have been closed at this point.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Ask the Mattia's neighbor about Max. He may have an interesting story to tell you. Also, ask to see his scar.



Frank, you couldnt have been more wrong with that comment.  The neighbor has allowed the Mattias to place one of the signs on his property, so get off that lie.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Frank, you couldnt have been more wrong with that comment.  The neighbor has allowed the Mattias to place one of the signs on his property, so get off that lie.


We're probably talking about a different neighbor. And what "lie" are you refering to??


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> I doubt very seriously the sheriff made the visit because of the sign.  I for one think that was a great way to have people realize what type of loser that CCSO has on the force.  I think it is great and I praise them for have the courage to stand up for what they believe it, rather than just sit a computer and remain anonymous through posting.     I honestly believe that Long has used the same "attack" scenario in the past and I think that it has been swept under the carpet because there was either no complaint because the people whose dog was kill was either to stupid to do file a complaint or too afraid to go against the CCSO.  I don't know, but the fact that the Mattias have the b______s to do so, it may have made the office open their eyes and realize that they may have person on the force that is not standing up to the oath he took.   If it was a cut and dry situation and Long had any kind of serious puncture wound, the case surely would have been closed at this point.


 Not for you.  You would have said he caused the puncture wound himself like you have suggested about the minor injury he already has!


----------



## dawn

Charles County officer ... 06-19-2007 08:45 PM I thought there were two sons, and it was the other that came home and found the dog.  

There were two sons, but Long didnt know which son he was looking for.  When the son pulled up, Long never confronted him, the son never saw Long for that matter. 

Long was there to serve a warrant, if a young man pulls up, one would think that if you are there to serve a warrant, you would confront the young man to see if it is the guy you are looking for.

Thanks for the red karma!


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> We're probably talking about a different neighbor. And what "lie" are you refering to??



There are only three of them that live back there Frank.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> There are only three of them that live back there Frank.


In your "investigation" did you interview all neighbors? Probably not, as one will tell you of his dealings with Max.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Not for you.  You would have said he caused the puncture wound himself like you have suggested about the minor injury he already has!




If there was a puncture wound, yes I would say he caused it himself.  I think whatever, if any mark was on Long was self inflicted.  

We have no proof of no wound Tom.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> If there was a puncture wound, yes I would say he caused it himself.  I think whatever, if any mark was on Long was self inflicted.
> 
> We have no proof of no wound Tom.


So what. Even IF the dog did not bite him, is he supposed to wait and let the dog bite and maul him like that lady in Indiana yesterday? You need help.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> In your "investigation" did you interview all neighbors? Probably not, as one will tell you of his dealings with Max.




Well on my "investigation" I went up a driveway that was very long.  The First sign was in front of the house I stopped at and they pointed me to the house on the hill.  I went to the house on top of the hill and they told me it was the other house and they told me about how sorry they were for the family and how good of a dog max was.  So in my investigations, the people with the sign in the yard are allowing the Mattia to put the sign in their yard, so the obviously have no problem and the only other house, had a brief conversation about how nice and gentle the dog was.  So, in my investigations I hit all three houses.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> If there was a puncture wound, yes I would say he caused it himself.  I think whatever, if any mark was on Long was self inflicted.
> 
> We have no proof of no wound Tom.


 Doesn't matter.  You just said you wouldn't believe him.  Look who isn't objective!


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Well on my "investigation" I went up a driveway that was very long.  The First sign was in front of the house I stopped at and they pointed me to the house on the hill.  I went to the house on top of the hill and they told me it was the other house and they told me about how sorry they were for the family and how good of a dog max was.  So in my investigations, the people with the sign in the yard are allowing the Mattia to put the sign in their yard, so the obviously have no problem and the only other house, had a brief conversation about how nice and gentle the dog was.  So, in my investigations I hit all three houses.


CSI:Benedict     Dawn as Lead Investigator!!!


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> So what. Even IF the dog did not bite him, is he supposed to wait and let the dog bite and maul him like that lady in Indiana yesterday? You need help.




Why would a fool get close enough to a dog on a chain to allow him to bite or maul him.    COMMON SENSE 101 -- IF YOU COME ACROSS A DOG THAT IS CHAINED UP, KEEP AWAY!  

Thank you for the suggestion, but no I beleive you may be the one in need of some help.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter.  You just said you wouldn't believe him.  Look who isn't objective!




How can you be objective when an officer has killed two dogs previously.  

a little off the subject -- since you brought up kids before

if someone is accused of child molestation on two separate occasions and the third instance happens, would you be incline to say lets here the side of the two time molester, or would you automatically believe the child because of the prior accusations made on the molester?  (and before you go off on a tangent about children telling stories, I will go so far as to say we are talking about teens)


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Why would a fool get close enough to a dog on a chain to allow him to bite or maul him.    COMMON SENSE 101 -- IF YOU COME ACROSS A DOG THAT IS CHAINED UP, KEEP AWAY!
> 
> Thank you for the suggestion, but no I beleive you may be the one in need of some help.


This is dumb. No one here is ever going to even entertain the other's position. It's just a bunch of name calling now. I'm out. Good luck Tom, you're going to need it with that nut. She likes some stupid dog more than people apparently and she must be a vegan because she can't stand to see animals hurt. Hopefully this whole thing has taught that sh%$bag son a valuable lesson: Actions have consequences.....just my opinion. I am officially off the case. Dawn, good luck in everything you do, I hope you like lettuce.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> CSI:Benedict     Dawn as Lead Investigator!!!




Why thank you, I will take that as a compliment.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> How can you be objective when an officer has killed two dogs previously.
> 
> a little off the subject -- since you brought up kids before
> 
> if someone is accused of child molestation on two separate occasions and the third instance happens, would you be incline to say lets here the side of the two time molester, or would you automatically believe the child because of the prior accusations made on the molester?  (and before you go off on a tangent about children telling stories, I will go so far as to say we are talking about teens)


 Well, if the guy was never convicted, or charged on the first two..then I wouldn't put any extra weight into the third one.  Ohh  I must be wrong cause teens never lie!


----------



## otter

dawn said:
			
		

> How can you be objective when an officer has killed two dogs previously.



Really doesn't matter about the two other dogs, they may have been legit. Tom can't be objective, you haven't noticed?? Seems to me that 4 weeks ago there was a through investigation begun, where are the results?? Don't hold your breath. 

Fact - He discharged his gun 7 times.

Fact - He was serving a warrant on a person who wasn't the owner of the house. (I can look up the address and determine the owner without having police powers)

Fact - he shot a dog at the house where he was serving a warrant AFTER knocking on 3 doors, knowing that a dog was present. 

Opinion - He has the common sense of a turnip, he shouldn't be a cop.


----------



## camily

otter said:
			
		

> Really doesn't matter about the two other dogs, they may have been legit. Tom can't be objective, you haven't noticed?? Seems to me that 4 weeks ago there was a through investigation begun, where are the results?? Don't hold your breath.
> 
> Fact - He discharged his gun 7 times.
> 
> Fact - He was serving a warrant on a person who wasn't the owner of the house. (I can look up the address and determine the owner without having police powers)
> 
> Fact - he shot a dog at the house where he was serving a warrant AFTER knocking on 3 doors, knowing that a dog was present.
> 
> Opinion - He has the common sense of a turnip, he shouldn't be a cop.


Ok. I wasn't there but a CLOSE family relative told me that the chain with one of those twisties in the yard was not attached to a dog. That when he came around to the back is the only time he saw the chain....with no dog. He asumed the dog must be in the house. He knocked on the door and the dog appraoched, growling and in attack mode. Naturally. Bit him and he shot. He was being bit. We all know that mace doesn't always work on a dog when they are "in the zone". Not saying what was right either way. Just stating what I heard.


----------



## camily

tom88 said:
			
		

> I have asked time and time again, to explain what the circumstances behind him shooting two other dogs were.  Cops kill dogs for humanitarian reasons all the time.  If he did shoot two other dogs for the same reason he shot the Mattias dog, you people would have been all over it which makes me think it was for humanitarian reasons and by you keep saying it is another way to mislead people.
> 
> I believe the cops should be given the benefit of doubt.  But answer my question, should he have been mauled before killing the dog.  You said he had "barely a scratch" doesn't that mean the dog attacked?


As I stated before. They were owner requests that the dog be shot due to the fact that they were attacking the OWNER.


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> Ok. I wasn't there but a CLOSE family relative told me that the chain with one of those twisties in the yard was not attached to a dog. That when he came around to the back is the only time he saw the chain....with no dog. He asumed the dog must be in the house. He knocked on the door and the dog appraoched, growling and in attack mode. Naturally. Bit him and he shot. He was being bit. We all know that mace doesn't always work on a dog when they are "in the zone". Not saying what was right either way. Just stating what I heard.



OK, you forgot to mention that you are friends with LONG.  So one can safely bet that the CLOSE family relative that told you this infomration would be a relative of LONGS.  

I saw with my own eyes when I went to the Mattia house, one end of the chain was tied to the porch and the other end of the chain (which attaches to the dog collar) was beside the pool of blood where Max laid fighting death, because he couldnt run from the officer because he was tied up.


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> As I stated before. They were owner requests that the dog be shot due to the fact that they were attacking the OWNER.




OK so both times that Long was involved in dog realted shootings were because the owners requested that the dogs be put down becuase they were attacking.    So these owners called 911 for the police to come because the dog was attacking them.  If I was getting attacked by a dog, I dont think I would call 911, I would run like he** to get away from the dog and call animal control.  

Hard pill to swallow Camily.


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> OK so both times that Long was involved in dog realted shootings were because the owners requested that the dogs be put down becuase they were attacking.    So these owners called 911 for the police to come because the dog was attacking them.  If I was getting attacked by a dog, I dont think I would call 911, I would run like he** to get away from the dog and call animal control.
> 
> Hard pill to swallow Camily.


Arsewipe. Yes, we are friends, but believe it or not, people do call 911 when they are being attacked by their dog. You my dear, are mental.


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> Arsewipe. Yes, we are friends, but believe it or not, people do call 911 when they are being attacked by their dog. You my dear, are mental.



Can't say I would agree with you.  I think I would call animal control if I was being attacked by my own dog, not 911.  Usually police have more important things to do, like search for fugitives and serve warrants rather than deal with measly little animals.   


I thought that it was an important piece of information that you left out when you tried to say what you heard.  What you hear is going to be from Long's camp, so of course, I figured I needed to point out that it would be biased.


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> Can't say I would agree with you.  I think I would call animal control if I was being attacked by my own dog, not 911.  Usually police have more important things to do, like search for fugitives and serve warrants rather than deal with measly little animals.
> 
> 
> I thought that it was an important piece of information that you left out when you tried to say what you heard.  What you hear is going to be from Long's camp, so of course, I figured I needed to point out that it would be biased.


 Yeah, people look up animal control when being attacked . Would you look up CAP while being raped or call 911 if given the chance?


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> Yeah, people look up animal control when being attacked . Would you look up CAP while being raped or call 911 if given the chance?



Well considering the police are to investigate rapes and domestics, one would think you would call the police.

Considering that animal control is just that ANIMAL CONTROL, one would think you would call ANIMAL CONTROL for an animal problem.  Let me clarify, for your own animal problem.  If I got bit by another persons dog, I would probably call the police, but my own dog, sorry animal control is for animal control.


You really are such the lady with the name calling.


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> What are you insinuating with Mattias wife living down the street?  I don't get it.  Just say it!



Hey,

I'm not talking about the father.  Look at the Maryland Judicial website.
His son's wife (as it appears) is the one that lived or lives down the street from Long.

Check it out.  This is all public record.  
If you need me to post the link for the 100th time, please ask and I'll do it.

Geez!


----------



## Chasey_Lane

dawn said:
			
		

> Considering that animal control is just that ANIMAL CONTROL, one would think you would call ANIMAL CONTROL for an animal problem.  Let me clarify, for your own animal problem.  If I got bit by another persons dog, I would probably call the police, but my own dog, sorry animal control is for animal control.


  I have a 100 lb male Boxer.  When he's playing and jumping around he sometimes almost knocks me over.  If he decided to turn against me and attack (or anyone else) I surely wouldn't flip through a phone book to locate Animal Control's number.


----------



## BillnChristi

That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot.  Let's look at this in a logical way.

1.  If noone answers the first 2 doors you  knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd?  Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop  isn't going to  give up..so I better."  

2.  Did this cop not see the dog?  If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop.  Cops are supposed to be very observing.  It is their job.  They are supposed to also have common sense.  If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD!  Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place.  Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault.  

3.  An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant.  An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property.  He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person.  Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door.  Private Property is just that...PRIVATE.  They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.

4.  Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the  dog's reach?  Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense.  

5.  Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times?  I doubt it.  He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain.  In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.

6.  Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards?  The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards.  

7.  My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened.  It didn't happen just once..but twice before.   Use some common sense people.  How many other cops have shot multiple dogs.  Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?

All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions.  Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations.   What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop?  Would you find the  cop justified if he shot him?  I don't think so.  This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer.  I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD!  There is NO justification for what he did.  

I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.


----------



## calamity jane

dawn said:
			
		

> Why would a fool get close enough to a dog on a chain to allow him to bite or maul him.    COMMON SENSE 101 -- IF YOU COME ACROSS A DOG THAT IS CHAINED UP, KEEP AWAY!
> 
> What evidence do you have that the dog was chained up? None, just the Mattias word for it. When I look at the pictures I see a broken choke chain, positioned next to the end of the lead. I see neither end attached to the lead. Whoever laid it there for the picture should have attached one end to the hook on the lead. Would have been more convincing that the choke chain was attached to it. I don't think it was.
> And before someone jumps in about the dog would have met him at the car if it was loose, WRONG. I grew up with 2 g. shepherds. They are clever and can be sneaky. It is absolutely possible that the dog did'nt try to attack until the officer was around back where the dog was usually tied out.


----------



## aanderson

dawn said:
			
		

> Well considering the police are to investigate rapes and domestics, one would think you would call the police.
> 
> Considering that animal control is just that ANIMAL CONTROL, one would think you would call ANIMAL CONTROL for an animal problem.  Let me clarify, for your own animal problem.  If I got bit by another persons dog, I would probably call the police, but my own dog, sorry animal control is for animal control.
> 
> 
> You really are such the lady with the name calling.



I have stayed out of this since the beginning, but I have to pull the   flag out on this.  I know that if my dog was attacking...I would DEFINITELY call 911 for help.  By the time I found the number for animal control, I probably would be dead...


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Hey,
> 
> I'm not talking about the father.  Look at the Maryland Judicial website.
> His son's wife (as it appears) is the one that lived or lives down the street from Long.
> 
> Check it out.  This is all public record.
> If you need me to post the link for the 100th time, please ask and I'll do it.
> 
> Geez!


 How do you know LONG lived on that street?  What are you insinuating?  What is the connection.  I don't want to make assumptions about what you are saying just tell us what it means if Long lives on the same street?


----------



## pixiegirl

Dawn, Can I have your phone number?  If my 65# pit bull ever decides to attack I wanna call you opposed to 911 or animal control (who are officers by the way and often call the CCSO for back-up).


----------



## smcop

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot.  Let's look at this in a logical way.
> 
> 1.  If noone answers the first 2 doors you  knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd?  Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop  isn't going to  give up..so I better."
> 
> 2.  Did this cop not see the dog?  If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop.  Cops are supposed to be very observing.  It is their job.  They are supposed to also have common sense.  If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD!  Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place.  Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault.
> 
> 3.  An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant.  An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property.  He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person.  Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door.  Private Property is just that...PRIVATE.  They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.
> 
> 4.  Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the  dog's reach?  Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense.
> 
> 5.  Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times?  I doubt it.  He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain.  In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.
> 
> 6.  Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards?  The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards.
> 
> 7.  My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened.  It didn't happen just once..but twice before.   Use some common sense people.  How many other cops have shot multiple dogs.  Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?
> 
> All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions.  Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations.   What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop?  Would you find the  cop justified if he shot him?  I don't think so.  This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer.  I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD!  There is NO justification for what he did.
> 
> I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.


 I have looked at this stuff and mostly gotten bored.  One thing I want to point out is I have been a cop for 12 years and have shot two dogs.  One was a puppy who was hit by a large pick up truck, and the other was a dog who was hit by a delievery truck.  I hated shooting either of them but it was the right thing to do.  

Now, I hope that I never have to shoot a dog who is coming after me, especially after reading all the stuff people have assumed about this Officer Long.  There seems to be a lot of assumptions made about his actions without giving him due process.  But if I do have to shoot a dog in the line of duty again, I will tell you this, I wouldn't make any statement after seeing that each word said would be twisted on a forum like this.


----------



## General Lee

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot.  Let's look at this in a logical way.
> 
> 1.  If noone answers the first 2 doors you  knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd?  Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop  isn't going to  give up..so I better."
> 
> 2.  Did this cop not see the dog?  If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop.  Cops are supposed to be very observing.  It is their job.  They are supposed to also have common sense.  If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD!  Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place.  Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault.
> 
> 3.  An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant.  An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property.  He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person.  Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door.  Private Property is just that...PRIVATE.  They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.
> 
> 4.  Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the  dog's reach?  Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense.
> 
> 5.  Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times?  I doubt it.  He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain.  In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.
> 
> 6.  Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards?  The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards.
> 
> 7.  My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened.  It didn't happen just once..but twice before.   Use some common sense people.  How many other cops have shot multiple dogs.  Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?
> 
> All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions.  Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations.   What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop?  Would you find the  cop justified if he shot him?  I don't think so.  This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer.  I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD!  There is NO justification for what he did.
> 
> I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.


 
     That is the smartest terminology I have ever read


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> How do you know LONG lived on that street?  What are you insinuating?  What is the connection.  I don't want to make assumptions about what you are saying just tell us what it means if Long lives on the same street?



If it's Christopher T. Long, yes he did.  I checked all his cases as a policeman on the Maryland Judiciary Website and the case where he is a defendant.

Hey, there are a bunch of listings for the Mattias on the website.  It's public knowledge.
Maureen Mattia lived a short distance down the street.  What am I insinuating?
Not really sure at this point. I certainly have my suspicions.


----------



## lovinmaryland

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> What am I insinuating?
> Not really sure at this point. I certainly have my suspicions.


----------



## tom88

tom88 said:
			
		

> How do you know LONG lived on that street?  What are you insinuating?  What is the connection.  I don't want to make assumptions about what you are saying just tell us what it means if Long lives on the same street?


 Ok.  You don't even know what you are trying to say by saying Mattia's ex-wife lived down the street?  Are you just saying stuff to stir it up?  I don't understand you.  Grow a set and tell us what you are trying to say or shut the f*** up!


----------



## tom88

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot.  Let's look at this in a logical way.
> 
> 1.  If noone answers the first 2 doors you  knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd?  Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop  isn't going to  give up..so I better."
> 
> 2.  Did this cop not see the dog?  If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop.  Cops are supposed to be very observing.  It is their job.  They are supposed to also have common sense.  If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD!  Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place.  Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault.
> 
> 3.  An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant.  An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property.  He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person.  Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door.  Private Property is just that...PRIVATE.  They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.
> 
> 4.  Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the  dog's reach?  Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense.
> 
> 5.  Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times?  I doubt it.  He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain.  In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.
> 
> 6.  Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards?  The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards.
> 
> 7.  My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened.  It didn't happen just once..but twice before.   Use some common sense people.  How many other cops have shot multiple dogs.  Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?
> 
> All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions.  Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations.   What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop?  Would you find the  cop justified if he shot him?  I don't think so.  This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer.  I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD!  There is NO justification for what he did.
> 
> I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.


 If a cop is looking in a house, wouldn't we want him to look through all the doors and windows?  He shoots the dog 5 additional times to cover it up?  Why so the dog wouldn't speak?  If you are going to call someone an idiot, make sure you spell check the things you then proceed to write you moron!


----------



## MiMiMi

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot.  Let's look at this in a logical way.
> 
> 1.  If noone answers the first 2 doors you  knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd?  Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop  isn't going to  give up..so I better."
> 
> 2.  Did this cop not see the dog?  If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop.  Cops are supposed to be very observing.  It is their job.  They are supposed to also have common sense.  If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD!  Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place.  Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault.
> 
> 3.  An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant.  An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property.  He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person.  Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door.  Private Property is just that...PRIVATE.  They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.
> 
> 4.  Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the  dog's reach?  Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense.
> 
> 5.  Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times?  I doubt it.  He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain.  In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.
> 
> 6.  Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards?  The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards.
> 
> 7.  My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened.  It didn't happen just once..but twice before.   Use some common sense people.  How many other cops have shot multiple dogs.  Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?
> 
> All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions.  Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations.   What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop?  Would you find the  cop justified if he shot him?  I don't think so.  This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer.  I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD!  There is NO justification for what he did.
> 
> I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.


 While you definitely have the right to express your opinion, I wanted to clarify a few points.  First, it is by no means uncommon for an officer to have had multiple encounters with animals that had to be destroyed.  You fail to consider that citizens call in these complaints the officers don't just go to random homes.  So when the officers are responding chances are the animal has already displayed threatening behavior therefore prompting the call from the citizen.  I don't think people realize how many animal complain calls come in every day.  Unfortunately for the safety of the public at large many times the animals have to be destroyed.  They may be injured, sick, rogue, or potentially rabid.  And since animal control has such limited resources they are unable to respond to each complaint.  So often it falls back on the officers to handle it.   As far as your response of what would have happened if it had been an 8 year old child, you are missing the point of what an imminent threat is.  The officers are trained to stop a threat to their welfare.  I don't think any officer would perceive an 8 year old as a threat to their safety.  As for the pointing the gun, I have taught my kids to respect weapons whether real or fake.  Because both can be fatal.  A perceived weapon can be just as dangerous as a real one.  I personally don't think pointing a gun real or fake at an armed person is a very good idea and that is why I have taught my kids not to do it.  This is just my thought on your opinions.


----------



## camily

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> I have a 100 lb male Boxer.  When he's playing and jumping around he sometimes almost knocks me over.  If he decided to turn against me and attack (or anyone else) I surely wouldn't flip through a phone book to locate Animal Control's number.


Luv ya' Chasey!


----------



## dawn

calamity jane said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a fool get close enough to a dog on a chain to allow him to bite or maul him.    COMMON SENSE 101 -- IF YOU COME ACROSS A DOG THAT IS CHAINED UP, KEEP AWAY!
> 
> What evidence do you have that the dog was chained up? None, just the Mattias word for it. When I look at the pictures I see a broken choke chain, positioned next to the end of the lead. I see neither end attached to the lead. Whoever laid it there for the picture should have attached one end to the hook on the lead. Would have been more convincing that the choke chain was attached to it. I don't think it was.
> And before someone jumps in about the dog would have met him at the car if it was loose, WRONG. I grew up with 2 g. shepherds. They are clever and can be sneaky. It is absolutely possible that the dog did'nt try to attack until the officer was around back where the dog was usually tied out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what evidence do you have that the dog was not tied up?  NONE just a cop that has killed three dogs, oh boy, let me get on my knees and pray to him for all his glory.       And I will jump in and say that the dog would not lay and wait.  a dog is a dog and dogs are by nature nosey and if anyone comes to a dogs yard, if a dog is loose a dog will come to greet you whether friendly or mean.  if a dog is chained a dog will bark, whether it be a mean or a hey I'm over here bark, a dog will not lay and wait, that is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard.   One of my dogs is a pitbull and they are famous for attacking and she doesnt sit and wait for anyone, she will approach you as soon as you come down the driveway.
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> calamity jane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what evidence do you have that the dog was not tied up?  NONE just a cop that has killed three dogs, oh boy, let me get on my knees and pray to him for all his glory.       And I will jump in and say that the dog would not lay and wait.  a dog is a dog and dogs are by nature nosey and if anyone comes to a dogs yard, if a dog is loose a dog will come to greet you whether friendly or mean.  if a dog is chained a dog will bark, whether it be a mean or a hey I'm over here bark, a dog will not lay and wait, that is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard.   One of my dogs is a pitbull and they are famous for attacking and she doesnt sit and wait for anyone, she will approach you as soon as you come down the driveway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you should SERIOUSLY not own Pit Bulls.  Would you have your own dog put down if it bit someone?
Click to expand...


----------



## camily

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you should SERIOUSLY not own Pit Bulls.  Would you have your own dog put down if it bit someone?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 110% Pix.
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> While you definitely have the right to express your opinion, I wanted to clarify a few points.  First, it is by no means uncommon for an officer to have had multiple encounters with animals that had to be destroyed.  You fail to consider that citizens call in these complaints the officers don't just go to random homes.  So when the officers are responding chances are the animal has already displayed threatening behavior therefore prompting the call from the citizen.  I don't think people realize how many animal complain calls come in every day.  Unfortunately for the safety of the public at large many times the animals have to be destroyed.  They may be injured, sick, rogue, or potentially rabid.  And since animal control has such limited resources they are unable to respond to each complaint.  So often it falls back on the officers to handle it.   As far as your response of what would have happened if it had been an 8 year old child, you are missing the point of what an imminent threat is.  The officers are trained to stop a threat to their welfare.  I don't think any officer would perceive an 8 year old as a threat to their safety.  As for the pointing the gun, I have taught my kids to respect weapons whether real or fake.  Because both can be fatal.  A perceived weapon can be just as dangerous as a real one.  I personally don't think pointing a gun real or fake at an armed person is a very good idea and that is why I have taught my kids not to do it.  This is just my thought on your opinions.




Gee, there was a dog running loose in the street today weaving in and out of traffic.  I called tri county animal control should I have all the police.   I do believe the police have better things to do other than run animal calls.  AND
THE SHERIFFS OFFICE ONLY RESPONDS TO VISCOUS AND INJURED ANIMAL CALLS.   the fricken call was not for a viscous animal is was for a STUPID CHILD SUPPORT WARRANT.   WE DON'T NEED TO BE KOJAK AND SURROUND THE PARAMETER FOR A FLIPPIN CHILD SUPPORT WARRANT.  As was said, if you get no flippin answer at the first, second and third door, why in the he** do you think you will get an answer at the fourth.    This fool is not trained properly nor does he have the correct mentality to be in uniform.  he is apparently trigger happy and does not know how to evaluate situations.  You guys are taking the word of a dog killer, not once, not twice but three times.   and I do believe as was stated just a few posts ago. SOMDCOP has been on the force for twelve COUNTY 12 years and he has had to put down two dogs and guess what they were because they were already hit so, I don't care how many calls come in to 911 for animal complaints the point is how many of the calls are answer with the animal being killed?  

I bet a number of you would change your tune if it happened to you.

Just my opinon!


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 110% Pix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like you opinion matters to me.  I could care less what you think.  you are a fool.
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you should SERIOUSLY not own Pit Bulls.  Would you have your own dog put down if it bit someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would give her the biggest steak in the world if she would bite a number of people on this board!
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would give her the biggest steak in the world if she would bite a number of people on this board!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is certainly a mature answer.
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

dawn said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would give her the biggest steak in the world if she would bite a number of people on this board!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to answer question honestly!  If she attacked and there was no circumstances that provoked the attack yes I would.  I saved my dog from people that fought pits, so I was skeptical of taking her, but as it turns out I have had her for ten years and she is the best dog anyone could ask for.
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to answer question honestly!  If she attacked and there was no circumstances that provoked the attack yes I would.  I saved my dog from people that fought pits, so I was skeptical of taking her, but as it turns out I have had her for ten years and she is the best dog anyone could ask for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The circumstances in which you got her are irrelevant.  You say "no circumstances that provoked the attack" that's an awful finite statement.  Say a todler got into her food bowl and she bit said child in the face.  What say you then?
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you should SERIOUSLY not own Pit Bulls.  Would you have your own dog put down if it bit someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have to disagree with you.  People like me should own pitbulls because people like me look past their reputation and see them for the gentle dog that they actually are.
> 
> I will say that there are several people on this board that should not own animals at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> camily said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like you opinion matters to me.  I could care less what you think.  you are a fool.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chasey_Lane

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The circumstances in which you got her are irrelevant.  You say "no circumstances that provoked the attack" that's an awful finite statement.  Say a todler got into her food bowl and she bit said child in the face.  What say you then?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the child should have taken food from its own bowl; not the dogs.
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say the child should have taken food from its own bowl; not the dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but a child doesn't know better.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chasey_Lane

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Chasey_Lane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree but a child doesn't know better.
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'd blame the parents for not teaching the child manners.
Click to expand...


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The circumstances in which you got her are irrelevant.  You say "no circumstances that provoked the attack" that's an awful finite statement.  Say a todler got into her food bowl and she bit said child in the face.  What say you then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering my toddler does go in my dogs food bowl and does take her food (dry food, before people starting making their smartazz comments), and she does nothing.  my son teases my dogs (two) of them that I allow him to play with, one full pit and one mixed pit, he teases them with treats and they are great with him.  I have no fear that my dogs will turn on him and it is sad that people live in fear like the people on this board do.    I have more fear of my cat scratching and attacking my son then I do my dogs.
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have to disagree with you.  People like me should own pitbulls because people like me look past their reputation and see them for the gentle dog that they actually are.
> 
> I will say that there are several people on this board that should not own animals at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree all you want.  It doesn't make you right.  It's not just looking past the reputation it's trying to make a difference in that reputation.  Aggressive dogs should be put to sleep.  There are thousands if not millions of non agressive dogs in shelters/rescues that would not bite, period.  I'm not talking any specific breed either.  I myself have a pit bull and am probably the biggest advocate on here.  If my dog ever bit anyone unless she was being directly provoked I'd have her put down.  That's the responsible thing to do.
Click to expand...


----------



## BillnChristi

tom88 said:
			
		

> If a cop is looking in a house, wouldn't we want him to look through all the doors and windows?  He shoots the dog 5 additional times to cover it up?  Why so the dog wouldn't speak?  If you are going to call someone an idiot, make sure you spell check the things you then proceed to write you moron!



LMAO...Tom, face it...if the only thing you can find wrong with my post is a typo or two, you might as well own up to the fact you are wrong.  NOONE has disputed the fact the dog was tied up except for you.  If anyone thought the dog wasn't...it would have been the first thing mentioned by the police.  By the way, this is a forum post, not a term paper or novel.  You are trying to find any reason you possibly can to make this cop appear innocent.  

Now, getting on with the other part of your post.  I guess you would feel it is right for a cop to sneak a peak in your window while you were in the bathroom taking care of business while reading "Law Enforcement Weekly".  Just so you know, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  A cop must have "Just Cause" before entering or trespassing on Private Property and an arrest warrant does not give them that right unless they know without a shadow of a doubt that the individual is there.  A letter stating that the individual once resided at that residence does NOT give them that right.  They must have seen the person or have an eye witness as I said in my previous post.

He shot the dog the additional times because the dog was tied up and he realized his mistake.  And it took him an additional 5 times to hit the choker collar that was around the dogs neck to make it appear the dog had actually broken loose.  What part of this don't you understand?  It would not take 7 shots to put down a dog that is tied to a chain nor would it take 7 shots to cripple an un-chained dog.  One or two shots would have sufficed in deterring the dog.  Or maybe even three or four...but seven I find unbelievable.  I could see 7 shots for a grizzly bear, a tiger, an elephant or some other more ferocious animal in the wild.  But I can't see it  for a dog tied up in a back yard that has NO history of ever attacking anyone.

While I  agree the dog probably did attack him, however the cop was at fault.  The dog did it's job, the cop didn't.  The cop should have never been behind the house.  He did not have a "Search" Warrant.


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree all you want.  It doesn't make you right.  It's not just looking past the reputation it's trying to make a difference in that reputation.  Aggressive dogs should be put to sleep.  There are thousands if not millions of non agressive dogs in shelters/rescues that would not bite, period.  I'm not talking any specific breed either.  I myself have a pit bull and am probably the biggest advocate on here.  If my dog ever bit anyone unless she was being directly provoked I'd have her put down.  That's the responsible thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we agree on one thing!
Click to expand...


----------



## pixiegirl

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I'd blame the parents for not teaching the child manners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So would I but that's not the point.  Sometimes crap happens and how many toddlers do you know with manners?  I'd blame the parents for not watching the child.  But that's not what I'm getting at.  Not who's to blame just if it happened.
Click to expand...


----------



## spicy

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> LMAO...Tom, face it...if the only thing you can find wrong with my post is a typo or two, you might as well own up to the fact you are wrong.  NOONE has disputed the fact the dog was tied up except for you.  If anyone thought the dog wasn't...it would have been the first thing mentioned by the police.  By the way, this is a forum post, not a term paper or novel.  You are trying to find any reason you possibly can to make this cop appear innocent.
> 
> Now, getting on with the other part of your post.  I guess you would feel it is right for a cop to sneak a peak in your window while you were in the bathroom taking care of business while reading "Law Enforcement Weekly".  Just so you know, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  A cop must have "Just Cause" before entering or trespassing on Private Property and an arrest warrant does not give them that right unless they know without a shadow of a doubt that the individual is there.  A letter stating that the individual once resided at that residence does NOT give them that right.  They must have seen the person or have an eye witness as I said in my previous post.
> 
> He shot the dog the additional times because the dog was tied up and he realized his mistake.  And it took him an additional 5 times to hit the choker collar that was around the dogs neck to make it appear the dog had actually broken loose.  What part of this don't you understand?  It would not take 7 shots to put down a dog that is tied to a chain nor would it take 7 shots to cripple an un-chained dog.  One or two shots would have sufficed in deterring the dog.  Or maybe even three or four...but seven I find unbelievable.  I could see 7 shots for a grizzly bear, a tiger, an elephant or some other more ferocious animal in the wild.  But I can't see it  for a dog tied up in a back yard that has NO history of ever attacking anyone.
> 
> While I  agree the dog probably did attack him, however the cop was at fault.  The dog did it's job, the cop didn't.  The cop should have never been behind the house.  He did not have a "Search" Warrant.




For the record, I have disputed that the dog may have gotten loose just as Officer Long said. Also, have you ever shot a dog? Or a grizzly bear? Have you ever shot anything that is alive? I'm guessing no. But, if you have, please enlighten us. Even after 7 shots, Max was still alive. What does that say?


----------



## BillnChristi

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> While you definitely have the right to express your opinion, I wanted to clarify a few points.  First, it is by no means uncommon for an officer to have had multiple encounters with animals that had to be destroyed.  You fail to consider that citizens call in these complaints the officers don't just go to random homes.  So when the officers are responding chances are the animal has already displayed threatening behavior therefore prompting the call from the citizen.  I don't think people realize how many animal complain calls come in every day.  Unfortunately for the safety of the public at large many times the animals have to be destroyed.  They may be injured, sick, rogue, or potentially rabid.  And since animal control has such limited resources they are unable to respond to each complaint.  So often it falls back on the officers to handle it.   As far as your response of what would have happened if it had been an 8 year old child, you are missing the point of what an imminent threat is.  The officers are trained to stop a threat to their welfare.  I don't think any officer would perceive an 8 year old as a threat to their safety.  As for the pointing the gun, I have taught my kids to respect weapons whether real or fake.  Because both can be fatal.  A perceived weapon can be just as dangerous as a real one.  I personally don't think pointing a gun real or fake at an armed person is a very good idea and that is why I have taught my kids not to do it.  This is just my thought on your opinions.



I understand what you are saying, but I will have to disagree with the fact that this was not a call for a rabid, vicious or attacking dog.  The cop  had no reason to be in the back yard unless he knew for sure the warranted individual was actually on the  property.  

As far as the 8 year old comment goes.  Yes the cop should know the difference and be able to determine whether the threat is imminent.  But let's say hypothetically that the 8 year old somehow got a hold of a real gun and the officer knew it.  Would the officer be justified in blowing the kid away right off the bat if the kid pointed the gun at him?  It is possible that the kid could figure out to fire the gun and possibly fire it at the officer (kids younger than 8 have kid themselves or siblings with loaded guns).  I  know this scenario is far fetched but it is possible.  So would the cop be justified in shooting the kid?  The threat is visable and life threatening.   Or would the cop back away and try to find the parents or in this case try and find the dog's owner.  Yes we are talking about a person versus an animal, but some feel their pets are just as close as animal members.  People are arrested everyday for animal cruelty.  Doesn't this actually fit that?  I think it does and so do others.  

If it were a neighbor and the neighbor went over to the house and was attacked by the dog, the neighbor then shot the dog.  Is the neighbor justified?  If he isn't...how can  the cop be?


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have to disagree with you.  People like me should own pitbulls because people like me look past their reputation and see them for the gentle dog that they actually are.
> 
> I will say that there are several people on this board that should not own animals at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like me right? Here is my vicious Rottie, and some of my other babies. BTW, my rottie nipped at Chris once when I was babysitting for them and he came in and picked up one of his kids. My dog was protecting the kids and had no idea he was the dad. Chris did NOTHING. He completely understood and was grateful the dog was protecting his children.
Click to expand...


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> pixiegirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering my toddler does go in my dogs food bowl and does take her food (dry food, before people starting making their smartazz comments), and she does nothing.  my son teases my dogs (two) of them that I allow him to play with, one full pit and one mixed pit, he teases them with treats and they are great with him.  I have no fear that my dogs will turn on him and it is sad that people live in fear like the people on this board do.    I have more fear of my cat scratching and attacking my son then I do my dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're stupid. No one with a lick of sense would let their children tease and torment a dog. You have to get up pretty early, one might say "Before the crack of Dawn"  to get one over on me.
Click to expand...


----------



## cattitude

camily said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like me right? Here is my vicious Rottie, and some of my other babies. BTW, my rottie nipped at Chris once when I was babysitting for them and he came in and picked up one of his kids. My dog was protecting the kids and had no idea he was the dad. Chris did NOTHING. He completely understood and was grateful the dog was protecting his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely different situation.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually this thread has become pathetic and both sides are behaving poorly.  If it was my dog, I'd be pissed and devastated but enough is enough.  Go forward with what you feel you have to do, honor Max's memory and stop all the bickering and name calling.  I don't think either "side" is gaining anything at this point.
Click to expand...


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Ok.  You don't even know what you are trying to say by saying Mattia's ex-wife lived down the street?  Are you just saying stuff to stir it up?  I don't understand you.  Grow a set and tell us what you are trying to say or shut the f*** up!



Hey Man,

Long stirred up the trouble.  People defending this guy either lack common sense or are just hard-headed enough to admit that this is a highly suspicious act of animal cruelty.  
Pointing people toward a Maryland Judicial Website is not stirring up trouble.  People can look at the public record and decide for themselves.  I don't post the lawsuits, I just read them.
Every day that passes without a public statement or written explanation in the newspaper leads more people to believe the guy is guilty.  
  
Now you can go back to your tirade.


----------



## BadGirl

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> He shot the dog the additional times because the dog was tied up and he realized his mistake. And it took him an additional 5 times to hit the choker collar that was around the dogs neck to make it appear the dog had actually broken loose.


I don't understand something about this comment, so please entertain me for a second.

Why would the cop shoot at the collar an additional 5 times to make it appear that the dog had broken loose, instead of walking up to the animal and simply removing the collar from his neck?

Not that this matters one way or another, of course.


----------



## Woodyspda

spicy said:
			
		

> For the record, I have disputed that the dog may have gotten loose just as Officer Long said. Also, have you ever shot a dog? Or a grizzly bear? Have you ever shot anything that is alive? I'm guessing no. But, if you have, please enlighten us. Even after 7 shots, Max was still alive. What does that say?



That Long is a lousy shot.


----------



## calamity jane

dawn said:
			
		

> calamity jane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what evidence do you have that the dog was not tied up?  NONE just a cop that has killed three dogs, oh boy, let me get on my knees and pray to him for all his glory.       And I will jump in and say that the dog would not lay and wait.  a dog is a dog and dogs are by nature nosey and if anyone comes to a dogs yard, if a dog is loose a dog will come to greet you whether friendly or mean.  if a dog is chained a dog will bark, whether it be a mean or a hey I'm over here bark, a dog will not lay and wait, that is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard.   One of my dogs is a pitbull and they are famous for attacking and she doesnt sit and wait for anyone, she will approach you as soon as you come down the driveway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I present as my evidence the picture showing the choke chain NOT attached to the lead.
> And a dog is a dog is an animal with a mind of it's own. You nor anyone else on the planet can 100% guarantee that they know what a dog will do. I had a shepherd whose favorite tactic was to try to ambush people when they were'nt looking. If you have never heard of that then you don't have a lot of dog experience.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> LMAO...Tom, face it...if the only thing you can find wrong with my post is a typo or two, you might as well own up to the fact you are wrong.  NOONE has disputed the fact the dog was tied up except for you.  If anyone thought the dog wasn't...it would have been the first thing mentioned by the police.  By the way, this is a forum post, not a term paper or novel.  You are trying to find any reason you possibly can to make this cop appear innocent.
> 
> Now, getting on with the other part of your post.  I guess you would feel it is right for a cop to sneak a peak in your window while you were in the bathroom taking care of business while reading "Law Enforcement Weekly".  Just so you know, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  A cop must have "Just Cause" before entering or trespassing on Private Property and an arrest warrant does not give them that right unless they know without a shadow of a doubt that the individual is there.  A letter stating that the individual once resided at that residence does NOT give them that right.  They must have seen the person or have an eye witness as I said in my previous post.
> 
> He shot the dog the additional times because the dog was tied up and he realized his mistake.  And it took him an additional 5 times to hit the choker collar that was around the dogs neck to make it appear the dog had actually broken loose.  What part of this don't you understand?  It would not take 7 shots to put down a dog that is tied to a chain nor would it take 7 shots to cripple an un-chained dog.  One or two shots would have sufficed in deterring the dog.  Or maybe even three or four...but seven I find unbelievable.  I could see 7 shots for a grizzly bear, a tiger, an elephant or some other more ferocious animal in the wild.  But I can't see it  for a dog tied up in a back yard that has NO history of ever attacking anyone.
> 
> While I  agree the dog probably did attack him, however the cop was at fault.  The dog did it's job, the cop didn't.  The cop should have never been behind the house.  He did not have a "Search" Warrant.


 A police officer does have the right to look for a wanted person at their house.  I would agree they cannot enter the residence without a search warrant, however one would be foolish to suggest a police officer can't walk up a set of steps, or knock on a back door in search of someone how has an open warrant.  If you agree the dog attacked the police officer then the rest is mute!


----------



## dawn

camily said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like me right? Here is my vicious Rottie, and some of my other babies. BTW, my rottie nipped at Chris once when I was babysitting for them and he came in and picked up one of his kids. My dog was protecting the kids and had no idea he was the dad. Chris did NOTHING. He completely understood and was grateful the dog was protecting his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you dogs and cat are beautiful.
> 
> Animals can sense things about people and if you dogs even nipped at him, I just think there is something that is really rotten about him.    My dog did growl at my ex's friend, and that friend was a huge POS and i racked it up to dogs have an instinct, and are usually right.
Click to expand...


----------



## FrankBama1234

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> LMAO...Tom, face it...if the only thing you can find wrong with my post is a typo or two, you might as well own up to the fact you are wrong.  NOONE has disputed the fact the dog was tied up except for you.  If anyone thought the dog wasn't...it would have been the first thing mentioned by the police.  By the way, this is a forum post, not a term paper or novel.  You are trying to find any reason you possibly can to make this cop appear innocent.
> 
> Now, getting on with the other part of your post.  I guess you would feel it is right for a cop to sneak a peak in your window while you were in the bathroom taking care of business while reading "Law Enforcement Weekly".  Just so you know, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.  A cop must have "Just Cause" before entering or trespassing on Private Property and an arrest warrant does not give them that right unless they know without a shadow of a doubt that the individual is there.  A letter stating that the individual once resided at that residence does NOT give them that right.  They must have seen the person or have an eye witness as I said in my previous post.
> 
> He shot the dog the additional times because the dog was tied up and he realized his mistake.  And it took him an additional 5 times to hit the choker collar that was around the dogs neck to make it appear the dog had actually broken loose.  What part of this don't you understand?  It would not take 7 shots to put down a dog that is tied to a chain nor would it take 7 shots to cripple an un-chained dog.  One or two shots would have sufficed in deterring the dog.  Or maybe even three or four...but seven I find unbelievable.  I could see 7 shots for a grizzly bear, a tiger, an elephant or some other more ferocious animal in the wild.  But I can't see it  for a dog tied up in a back yard that has NO history of ever attacking anyone.
> 
> While I  agree the dog probably did attack him, however the cop was at fault.  The dog did it's job, the cop didn't.  The cop should have never been behind the house.  He did not have a "Search" Warrant.


And you were there and saw this??? Check the neighbor and look at his arm. You will see the scar Max left on his arm. Funny how Dawn doesn't talk about that....


----------



## dawn

calamity jane said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I present as my evidence the picture showing the choke chain NOT attached to the lead.
> And a dog is a dog is an animal with a mind of it's own. You nor anyone else on the planet can 100% guarantee that they know what a dog will do. I had a shepherd whose favorite tactic was to try to ambush people when they were'nt looking. If you have never heard of that then you don't have a lot of dog experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and your shepherd practiced his favorite tactic and ambushed people that the dog did not know?
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

BillnChristi said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, but I will have to disagree with the fact that this was not a call for a rabid, vicious or attacking dog.  The cop  had no reason to be in the back yard unless he knew for sure the warranted individual was actually on the  property.
> 
> As far as the 8 year old comment goes.  Yes the cop should know the difference and be able to determine whether the threat is imminent.  But let's say hypothetically that the 8 year old somehow got a hold of a real gun and the officer knew it.  Would the officer be justified in blowing the kid away right off the bat if the kid pointed the gun at him?  It is possible that the kid could figure out to fire the gun and possibly fire it at the officer (kids younger than 8 have kid themselves or siblings with loaded guns).  I  know this scenario is far fetched but it is possible.  So would the cop be justified in shooting the kid?  The threat is visable and life threatening.   Or would the cop back away and try to find the parents or in this case try and find the dog's owner.  Yes we are talking about a person versus an animal, but some feel their pets are just as close as animal members.  People are arrested everyday for animal cruelty.  Doesn't this actually fit that?  I think it does and so do others.
> 
> If it were a neighbor and the neighbor went over to the house and was attacked by the dog, the neighbor then shot the dog.  Is the neighbor justified?  If he isn't...how can  the cop be?




Yes.  The cop would be justified.  This would be traggic and horrible, but justifiable.  Just as it is tragic and horrible that this dog is dead, but certainly justifiable.


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> camily said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you dogs and cat are beautiful.
> 
> Animals can sense things about people and if you dogs even nipped at him, I just think there is something that is really rotten about him.    My dog did growl at my ex's friend, and that friend was a huge POS and i racked it up to dogs have an instinct, and are usually right.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the nice comment and I do agree that dogs (and cats) can sense things in people. I do have to admit that Mack (the rottie) is VERY territorial. He is great with all of us but doesn't like visitors. I am about to buy a pen I can put him in when we have company. I have had him through training ang I work for a vet so we are on the ball with all of that. All I can say is that likes the people he lives with and MIGHT accept others on occasion.
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> camily said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you dogs and cat are beautiful.
> 
> Animals can sense things about people and if you dogs even nipped at him, I just think there is something that is really rotten about him.    My dog did growl at my ex's friend, and that friend was a huge POS and i racked it up to dogs have an instinct, and are usually right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  A dog is a dog is a dog!  They can sense things about people.  I bet you believe in ghost too!  Just because you associate with POS's, doesn't mean your dog knows who they are.
Click to expand...


----------



## camily

tom88 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  A dog is a dog is a dog!  They can sense things about people.  I bet you believe in ghost too!  Just because you associate with POS's, doesn't mean your dog knows who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let BuddyLee hear you say that.
Click to expand...


----------



## u gotta love me

I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?

There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.


----------



## 88stringslouie

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?
> 
> There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.



I would think that Mr. Long would have the same exact rights to shoot a dog because some low life doesn't pay their bills and a company is suing them.
I also think he would have an even bigger right to do it if the low life had just found out that a lawsuit was imminent. 
 :shrug:


----------



## dawn

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?
> 
> There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.




Anyone that does not pay their obligations is low in my eyes.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?
> 
> There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.


 Deputies don't serve subpoenas for private debts in Charles County.  I would feel the son is less a low life, but a low life non the less for incurring debt and not having the fortitude to continue to pay said debt.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Deputies don't serve subpoenas for private debts in Charles County.  I would feel the son is less a low life, but a low life non the less for incurring debt and not having the fortitude to continue to pay said debt.



Yes I know they don't serve subpoenas but talking hypothetically,  when I get a few more comments, I will tell you my reasoning behind the question.  I am very interested to hear from Frankbama1234, Camily, Calamity Jane and if they would still consider the son a low life it it was a regular debt versus child support.

Thank you tom88, Dawn and 88stringslouie for answering and I promise you I will post my reason why I ask this question when I get answers from a few of the above.


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  A dog is a dog is a dog!  They can sense things about people.  I bet you believe in ghost too!  Just because you associate with POS's, doesn't mean your dog knows who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your ignorance tom88...
> 
> Dogs sense fear. Dogs know your scent. Most (not all) dogs will remember you by sight.
> 
> I was just over my friend's house and was told how the man of the house reprimanded their beagle for laying on the furniture... It's his own fault that the dog was on the furniture mind you as she was allowed on the old furniture..... well after being hauled off the couch the beagle proceeded upstairs jumped on her masters bed and dropped a load on his side of the bed. She knew exactly what she was doing.
> 
> My pup flips out everytime my best friend visits..... he's known to have a handful of treats..... but he doesn't always have them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Chasey_Lane

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jumped on her masters bed and dropped a load on his side of the bed.
> 
> 
> 
> :deaddoggy:
Click to expand...


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Gee, there was a dog running loose in the street today weaving in and out of traffic.  I called tri county animal control should I have all the police.   I do believe the police have better things to do other than run animal calls.  AND
> THE SHERIFFS OFFICE ONLY RESPONDS TO VISCOUS AND INJURED ANIMAL CALLS.   the fricken call was not for a viscous animal is was for a STUPID CHILD SUPPORT WARRANT.   WE DON'T NEED TO BE KOJAK AND SURROUND THE PARAMETER FOR A FLIPPIN CHILD SUPPORT WARRANT.  As was said, if you get no flippin answer at the first, second and third door, why in the he** do you think you will get an answer at the fourth.    This fool is not trained properly nor does he have the correct mentality to be in uniform.  he is apparently trigger happy and does not know how to evaluate situations.  You guys are taking the word of a dog killer, not once, not twice but three times.   and I do believe as was stated just a few posts ago. SOMDCOP has been on the force for twelve COUNTY 12 years and he has had to put down two dogs and guess what they were because they were already hit so, I don't care how many calls come in to 911 for animal complaints the point is how many of the calls are answer with the animal being killed?
> 
> I bet a number of you would change your tune if it happened to you.
> 
> Just my opinon!


 Actually if the dog was posing a driving hazard then yes you may have wanted to call the police. You apparently have NO knowledge of the volume or types of calls that come in regarding animals.  You have apparently opted to vent your hostility instead of using this forum as a way to express opinions and get new perspectives.  There is no right or wrong.  Each person is entitled to their thoughts on the topic.  Personally I think you should move on to the Anger Management Forum since you have a hostility issue with anyone who posts something you don't agree with.  You need to learn to debate an issue without having to toss out insults.


----------



## dawn

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Actually if the dog was posing a driving hazard then yes you may have wanted to call the police. You apparently have NO knowledge of the volume or types of calls that come in regarding animals.  You have apparently opted to vent your hostility instead of using this forum as a way to express opinions and get new perspectives.  There is no right or wrong.  Each person is entitled to their thoughts on the topic.  Personally I think you should move on to the Anger Management Forum since you have a hostility issue with anyone who posts something you don't agree with.  You need to learn to debate an issue without having to toss out insults.



Driving hazard, well no, it is a rural road, so all peple need to do is SLOW DOWN.    Appararently I do have knowledge of the volume and/or types of calls.  number 1 my best friend is married to a charles county police officer, when you are at their house, the scanner is turned on 24/7, when my friend is on the road and when she comes to my house, she sometimes brings a portable scanner, so you couldnt be more WRONG, i do know the calls that come in.   When I get attacked, you are damn right I will attack right back, and the insults only fly after they are thrown at me and that is all I will say to justify myself to you.


----------



## madMAX

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?
> 
> There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.




OK I WILL BITE, YEP, I THINK PEOPLE ARE LOW LIFES THAT DONT PAY THEIR BILLS


----------



## dmh

madMAX said:
			
		

> OK I WILL BITE, YEP, I THINK PEOPLE ARE LOW LIFES THAT DONT PAY THEIR BILLS




me too.


----------



## FrankBama1234

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Yes I know they don't serve subpoenas but talking hypothetically,  when I get a few more comments, I will tell you my reasoning behind the question.  I am very interested to hear from Frankbama1234, Camily, Calamity Jane and if they would still consider the son a low life it it was a regular debt versus child support.
> 
> Thank you tom88, Dawn and 88stringslouie for answering and I promise you I will post my reason why I ask this question when I get answers from a few of the above.


Any person, has the RIGHT to defend themselves against a dog who is attacking. Whether it is the mail man, the UPS man or a police officer. It doesn't matter if the dog was leashed or not. If the dog attacks, are we supposed to let him maul and bite until it kills? Look at the news story I posted a few pages ago. A woman in Indiana was killed by a dog. Was the dog right? According to some of you people it was. Check the neighbor's arm, or better yet, ask Max's owner about the neighbor who was bitten by him. No one dare talk about that.....


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Any person, has the RIGHT to defend themselves against a dog who is attacking. Whether it is the mail man, the UPS man or a police officer. It doesn't matter if the dog was leashed or not. If the dog attacks, are we supposed to let him maul and bite until it kills? Look at the news story I posted a few pages ago. A woman in Indiana was killed by a dog. Was the dog right? According to some of you people it was. Check the neighbor's arm, or better yet, ask Max's owner about the neighbor who was bitten by him. No one dare talk about that.....



What's your badge number, Mr. Information?
Do you guys harrass people's neighbors to dig for information?


----------



## 88stringslouie

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Actually if the dog was posing a driving hazard then yes you may have wanted to call the police. You apparently have NO knowledge of the volume or types of calls that come in regarding animals.  You have apparently opted to vent your hostility instead of using this forum as a way to express opinions and get new perspectives.  There is no right or wrong.  Each person is entitled to their thoughts on the topic.  Personally I think you should move on to the Anger Management Forum since you have a hostility issue with anyone who posts something you don't agree with.  You need to learn to debate an issue without having to toss out insults.



Sure thing Ms. Mimimi...
Why not call Officer friendly Mr. Long to take care of the dog in a quick and effective manner?  (well, make sure no one is around, and an ambulance is nearby for injuries)


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> tom88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your ignorance tom88...
> 
> Dogs sense fear. Dogs know your scent. Most (not all) dogs will remember you by sight.
> 
> I was just over my friend's house and was told how the man of the house reprimanded their beagle for laying on the furniture... It's his own fault that the dog was on the furniture mind you as she was allowed on the old furniture..... well after being hauled off the couch the beagle proceeded upstairs jumped on her masters bed and dropped a load on his side of the bed. She knew exactly what she was doing.
> 
> My pup flips out everytime my best friend visits..... he's known to have a handful of treats..... but he doesn't always have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you stupid?  Everyone knows animals can sense fear!  Senseing fear and determining ones character are two distinctly different things.  Why not give more mis-information as you did earlier.  Your credibility is gone you looser!
Click to expand...


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> What's your badge number, Mr. Information?
> Do you guys harrass people's neighbors to dig for information?


 Well lets talk about this passive dog biting a neighbor?  Come on with it.


----------



## dmh

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Any person, has the RIGHT to defend themselves against a dog who is attacking. Whether it is the mail man, the UPS man or a police officer. It doesn't matter if the dog was leashed or not. If the dog attacks, are we supposed to let him maul and bite until it kills? Look at the news story I posted a few pages ago. A woman in Indiana was killed by a dog. Was the dog right? According to some of you people it was. Check the neighbor's arm, or better yet, ask Max's owner about the neighbor who was bitten by him. No one dare talk about that.....




1. -- you did not answer the question as it was presented -- would you think that Mattia kid was just as much a low life if he did not pay a bill (for instance credit card bill, or car payment) and was being sued by a creditor -- would he be considered a low life?

2.  -- I thought in one of your last posts, you said you were done with this board!


----------



## smcop

dmh said:
			
		

> 1. -- you did not answer the question as it was presented -- would you think that Mattia kid was just as much a low life if he did not pay a bill (for instance credit card bill, or car payment) and was being sued by a creditor -- would he be considered a low life?
> 
> 2.  -- I thought in one of your last posts, you said you were done with this board![/QUOTE]
> 
> It's like a car accident.  We know we should turn away, but we can't.


----------



## calamity jane

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I know everyone has an issue with the son not paying child support.  Would everyone feel the son was just as much a low life if Long went to the house to say maybe serve a subpoena for the son not paying a regular bill and he was getting sued by the company he owed money too?
> 
> There is a point behind the question, but I would love to hear the answers before I give the point.



Things happen in life and I would have to know the reasons why the person was behind on their bills before I just make a blanket statement that anybody who does'nt pay a bill is a low life. Job lay-offs, accident and illness, lots of things can happen that we don't expect and cause a person to get behind. For example, if that person is'nt paying their credit card bill because they are paying their child support instead, then no, I'm not going to call him a low life.


----------



## pixiegirl

dmh said:
			
		

> Well hypothetically, would it be wrong if someone as a career went after people for not paying an obligation, but that same person that goes after people for not paying was being sued him or herself for not paying a bill.  hypothetically, we would be talking very recent, like within the past month or so and if this person is still employed.
> 
> before anyone goes on a rampage of defamation of character or slander, liability or anything of the sort, first off I am only asking a hypothetical question
> 
> 
> and for the record any and all information regarding court cases whether it be civial, criminal or even child support can be access thought the Maryland court docket on the internet and also by visiting the court house.
> 
> This is the site wherein you can research court cases just by typing in people names which is a matter of public record
> 
> http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp
> 
> 
> So I am just wondering hypothetically, in your opinion, would it be wrong to go after people for not paying an obligation, if you infact do not pay your own obligation?



I see where you're going with this and would suggest you check addresses.  There is one case that is his and since you can see that it's active and not closed AND that he has an attorney.  Is there any level you won't stoop to to make him look bad?  He hasn't been convicted of anything and since he's paying for an attorney I'd venture to say he thinks he has a case.  Yet you pass judgement and try to further tarnish his charachter to suit your own agenda.    Good job.


----------



## dmh

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> I see where you're going with this and would suggest you check addresses.  There is one case that is his and since you can see that it's active and not closed AND that he has an attorney.  Is there any level you won't stoop to to make him look bad?  He hasn't been convicted of anything and since he's paying for an attorney I'd venture to say he thinks he has a case.  Yet you pass judgement and try to further tarnish his charachter to suit your own agenda.    Good job.





I was only talking hypoteically, what would you be referring to?


----------



## pixiegirl

dmh said:
			
		

> I was only talking hypoteically, what would you be referring to?




And I'm Mary Poppins!


----------



## dmh

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> And I'm Mary Poppins!



Well nice to meet you Mary.


----------



## MMDad

dmh said:
			
		

> So I am just wondering hypothetically, in your opinion, would it be wrong to go after people for not paying an obligation, if you infact do not pay your own obligation?



There might be an issue if the officer were "going after" someone through their own initiative. It would not be wrong for an officer of the law to follow the orders of the court. In fact, it would be wrong for an officer NOT to follow orders or to allow his personal situation affect professional behavior.

In other words, your attempt to sling mud is


----------



## dmh

MMDad said:
			
		

> There might be an issue if the officer were "going after" someone through their own initiative. It would not be wrong for an officer of the law to follow the orders of the court. In fact, it would be wrong for an officer NOT to follow orders or to allow his personal situation affect professional behavior.
> 
> In other words, your attempt to sling mud is





All I did was ask a question, so many touchy people over a hypothetical question.  calm down you guys!


----------



## jetmonkey

So did the son ever get surrved, or what?


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> All I did was ask a question, so many touchy people over a hypothetical question.  calm down you guys!


 The link didn't work for me.  Who is being sued?


----------



## RoseRed

Channel 7 news said that the Officer was cleared.  I couldn't find a link.


----------



## dems4me

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Channel 7 news said that the Officer was cleared.  I couldn't find a link.




I watched it to. It was in their 6:00 segment.  They kept reporting the investigation /comments from Charles County officers were in.  So I stuck around, watched it until it came on and it was just a blurb. I kept thinking... that's it??


----------



## Lexib_

I think it was posted somewhere earlier on this thread.  The son turned himself in after the fact.


----------



## tom88

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Channel 7 news said that the Officer was cleared.  I couldn't find a link.


 Did they say what the suit was about?


----------



## dawn

OFFICIAL STATEMENT: On May 15, PFC Christopher Long responded to 17745 Prince Frederick Road in Hughesville to serve a child support arrest warrant. PFC Long was lawfully on the property and while attempting to determine whether anyone was home, PFC Long was bitten on the leg by a German Sheppard. PFC Long discharged his Agency-issued handgun and killed the dog.
A use-of-force investigation has been completed and the Office of Professional Responsibility has reviewed the investigation and conducted an inquiry into the matter. The Sheriff’s Office has determined that PFC Long did not violate any Agency policy during the incident. Based on the thorough investigation and subsequently follow-up inquiry, PFC Long’s actions are determined to have been justified.
The result of the confrontation between the officer and the dog was unfortunate and tragic, and Sheriff Rex Coffey and the members of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office extend their condolences to the Mattia family.
###


----------



## Kain99

dawn said:
			
		

> OFFICIAL STATEMENT: On May 15, PFC Christopher Long responded to 17745 Prince Frederick Road in Hughesville to serve a child support arrest warrant. PFC Long was lawfully on the property and while attempting to determine whether anyone was home, PFC Long was bitten on the leg by a German Sheppard. PFC Long discharged his Agency-issued handgun and killed the dog.
> A use-of-force investigation has been completed and the Office of Professional Responsibility has reviewed the investigation and conducted an inquiry into the matter. The Sheriff’s Office has determined that PFC Long did not violate any Agency policy during the incident. Based on the thorough investigation and subsequently follow-up inquiry, PFC Long’s actions are determined to have been justified.
> The result of the confrontation between the officer and the dog was unfortunate and tragic, and Sheriff Rex Coffey and the members of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office extend their condolences to the Mattia family.
> ###


Then ... That is that!  Human being won over a dog.  Who'd of thunk it?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> OFFICIAL STATEMENT: On May 15, PFC Christopher Long responded to 17745 Prince Frederick Road in Hughesville to serve a child support arrest warrant. PFC Long was lawfully on the property and while attempting to determine whether anyone was home, PFC Long was bitten on the leg by a German Sheppard. PFC Long discharged his Agency-issued handgun and killed the dog.
> A use-of-force investigation has been completed and the Office of Professional Responsibility has reviewed the investigation and conducted an inquiry into the matter. The Sheriff’s Office has determined that PFC Long did not violate any Agency policy during the incident. Based on the thorough investigation and subsequently follow-up inquiry, PFC Long’s actions are determined to have been justified.
> The result of the confrontation between the officer and the dog was unfortunate and tragic, and Sheriff Rex Coffey and the members of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office extend their condolences to the Mattia family.
> ###


 Well there is everyone's statement.  Everybody happy now.  A thorough investigation was complete and the officer is exhonerated.  No apologies necessary!


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Its been one month ago today that Max was killed and yet STILL no comment from the sherriffs office.  Amazing!    How hard is it to do an investigation.  The only need to internview one person.  The solve murders quicker than this.




Yes, they solve murders quicker than this, but the investigation goes on longer.  That is why murderers don't go to trial for nearly a year.  Now, the Charles County Sheriff's Office has come out and conducted an investigation and cleared the officer.  This my friends, and not so much friends ends this.  Like I have been saying for all these posts, Nothing will happen to this cop because he did nothing wrong.  I accept this report as proof of my prediction.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well there is everyone's statement.  Everybody happy now.  A thorough investigation was complete and the officer is exhonerated.  No apologies necessary!



Apology for what Tom, that there is no justice for anyone that is not a police officer? That obviously if you are a police officer you can do what you want with basically no consequence to your action?    I almost feel like I should become a cop, if I do, at least in charles county, it appears that I would be able to do what I want with no recourse from my employers.  I am very disappointed of the outcome, but I will make a promise -- Don't come on my property and shoot my dog, because Mattias were way to kind and you wouldnt get that kindness from me.


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes, they solve murders quicker than this, but the investigation goes on longer.  That is why murderers don't go to trial for nearly a year.  Now, the Charles County Sheriff's Office has come out and conducted an investigation and cleared the officer.  This my friends, and not so much friends ends this.  Like I have been saying for all these posts, Nothing will happen to this cop because he did nothing wrong.  I accept this report as proof of my prediction.



This proves my point.  The good old boy network can investigate themselves and get away with murder.  If they could have, the LAPD would have investigated their own cops if it wasn't for the video made by a bystander of Rodney King getting the crap beaten out of him.  They got their rears handed to them on a silver platter.

It also shows that we have no one qualified to investigate our county agency.

And by the way Mr. Tom88, you have very few friends on this board.  Long can live with himself as he knows exactly what happened that day.

Oh well, another day, another corrupt investigation.


----------



## PrchJrkr

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> And by the way Mr. Tom88, you have very few friends on this board.



I'd put money on tom88 having more people agreeing with him, than you.

All you have to do is look at the karma count.


----------



## General Lee

dawn said:
			
		

> Apology for what Tom, that there is no justice for anyone that is not a police officer? That obviously if you are a police officer you can do what you want with basically no consequence to your action?    I almost feel like I should become a cop, if I do, at least in charles county, it appears that I would be able to do what I want with no recourse from my employers.  I am very disappointed of the outcome, but I will make a promise -- Don't come on my property and shoot my dog, because Mattias were way to kind and you wouldnt get that kindness from me.



Ahh, the threatening type huh?


----------



## PrchJrkr

Charles County officer ... 06-26-2007 09:46 AM Do you like to kill dogs with Tom off in your spare time?

If they pose a threat, I would. Hug a nut...


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Apology for what Tom, that there is no justice for anyone that is not a police officer? That obviously if you are a police officer you can do what you want with basically no consequence to your action?    I almost feel like I should become a cop, if I do, at least in charles county, it appears that I would be able to do what I want with no recourse from my employers.  I am very disappointed of the outcome, but I will make a promise -- Don't come on my property and shoot my dog, because Mattias were way to kind and you wouldnt get that kindness from me.


 If you don't commit a crime or if your kids don't list your address as theirs when they get in trouble, then you don't have to worry about anyone coming on your property or shooting your dog.  Cops don't make social calls so if they don't have a reason to be there, they won't be.  So you don't need to make threats just abide by the law and you'll be fine.


----------



## MiMiMi

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This proves my point.  The good old boy network can investigate themselves and get away with murder.  If they could have, the LAPD would have investigated their own cops if it wasn't for the video made by a bystander of Rodney King getting the crap beaten out of him.  They got their rears handed to them on a silver platter.
> 
> It also shows that we have no one qualified to investigate our county agency.
> 
> And by the way Mr. Tom88, you have very few friends on this board.  Long can live with himself as he knows exactly what happened that day.
> 
> Oh well, another day, another corrupt investigation.


 You neglected to mention what a fine upstanding person Mr. King turned out to be.  How many more times has he been arrested?  You also forgot to mention the innocent trucker who was pulled from his vehicle and beaten to near death.  Who investigated that?  No one.  So the LAPD not only can't investigate themselves they can't investigate criminals either.  Don't make Mr. King out to be the innocent victim.  He should have been in jail and non of this would have happened.  And as for the investigation, I doubt anyone on this board was privy to all of the information that was used to investigate this case.  The Sheriff's Office has a highly respectable group of people who handle all complaints/investigations.  The decision was based on the facts and information from numerous sources.  You may think that the investigation was corrupt, but I can tell you that no one is dumb enough to put everything on the line to save one officer.  It is so much easier to side with public opinion and be the Good Guys.  But the facts didn't support that so they didn't decide that.  They didn't let public opinion sway them.  They stood for what was right whether anyone liked it or not.


----------



## dawn

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> I'd put money on tom88 having more people agreeing with him, than you.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the karma count.





I dont agree with Tom88  .


----------



## pixiegirl

dawn said:
			
		

> I dont agree with Tom88  .



You are truely an immature freak and I feel sorry for your child.  Babies raising babies... :shakinghead:


----------



## u gotta love me

dawn said:
			
		

> I dont agree with Tom88  .




I  DON'T AGREE WITH TOM EITHER!


----------



## Chasey_Lane

I don't agree with Otter.


----------



## pixiegirl

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> I don't agree with Otter.



Well I agree with Otter so I don't agree with you.


----------



## Chasey_Lane

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Well I agree with Otter so I don't agree with you.


Did you get my email I sent you yesterday afternoon?  It was a pit puppy, 7/8 weeks old.


----------



## dawn

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> You are truely an immature freak and I feel sorry for your child.  Babies raising babies... :shakinghead:


----------



## pixiegirl

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> Did you get my email I sent you yesterday afternoon?  It was a pit puppy, 7/8 weeks old.




OMG yes, I almost forgot.  Where is it?


----------



## Chasey_Lane

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> OMG yes, I almost forgot.  Where is it?


I'll send you an email.


----------



## pixiegirl

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> I'll send you an email.



I'll be waiting....


----------



## madMAX

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I  DON'T AGREE WITH TOM EITHER!




I do not agree with azzhole tom either.


----------



## pixiegirl

Someone please stop the gray karma ambush!


----------



## Chasey_Lane

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Someone please stop the gray karma ambush!


----------



## MMDad

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Someone please stop the gray karma ambush!



Aren't you a little young to have a gray bush?


----------



## pixiegirl

stupid ass -- whatever karma you got and thought I gave it to you -- DEAD WRONG -- If I gave you karma before I woundnt be able to leave this for you now -- dumb fu*k! DAWN

Dawn you retard with obvious MPDs, let me explain to you how karma works....  When you hit someone with red karma it takes away from their power points HALF of what your power is.  So, with a very simple equation someone can figure out WHO sent them the karma, especially if that person is not maxed out.  Now, if you have negative points or don't yet have 50 posts ALL karma you send is gray, like the one I just got from you that was signed that could not have possibly come from you because #1 you have more than 50 posts and #2 you don't have negative karma points.  So psycho, wanna roll those dice again?


----------



## camily

Chasey_Lane said:
			
		

> I don't agree with Otter.


I don't agree with you.


----------



## otter

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Well I agree with Otter so I don't agree with you.



Thats won't get you anywhere, you tattooed little tart.


----------



## cattitude

otter said:
			
		

> Thats won't get you anywhere, you tattooed little tart.



Great..Darby has an new MPD.


----------



## pixiegirl

otter said:
			
		

> Thats won't get you anywhere, you tattooed little tart.



:giggle: I simply can't come up with a snappy reply to being called a tart.


----------



## camily

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> Someone please stop the gray karma ambush!


I got two blank unsigned gray also and it's really eating away at me.


----------



## RoseRed

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> :giggle: I simply can't come up with a snappy reply to being called a fart.


----------



## camily

otter said:
			
		

> Thats won't get you anywhere, you tattooed little fart.


:fixed:


----------



## camily

RoseRed said:
			
		

>


Drats! Foiled again!


----------



## PrchJrkr

pixiegirl said:
			
		

> stupid ass -- whatever karma you got and thought I gave it to you -- DEAD WRONG -- If I gave you karma before I woundnt be able to leave this for you now -- dumb fu*k! DAWN
> 
> Dawn you retard with obvious MPDs, let me explain to you how karma works....  When you hit someone with red karma it takes away from their power points HALF of what your power is.  So, with a very simple equation someone can figure out WHO sent them the karma, especially if that person is not maxed out.  Now, if you have negative points or don't yet have 50 posts ALL karma you send is gray, like the one I just got from you that was signed that could not have possibly come from you because #1 you have more than 50 posts and #2 you don't have negative karma points.  So psycho, wanna roll those dice again?



Thanks for explaining in language even a turbo-tard like dawn can understand.

I believe she may have a little "patch" on her property somewhere.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> This proves my point.  The good old boy network can investigate themselves and get away with murder.  If they could have, the LAPD would have investigated their own cops if it wasn't for the video made by a bystander of Rodney King getting the crap beaten out of him.  They got their rears handed to them on a silver platter.
> 
> It also shows that we have no one qualified to investigate our county agency.
> 
> And by the way Mr. Tom88, you have very few friends on this board.  Long can live with himself as he knows exactly what happened that day.
> 
> Oh well, another day, another corrupt investigation.


 As I look at the green under my name and the red under yours, I would suggest you have a lack of friends on this board Louie.  Not that any of that matters to me at all.  Say what you want.  I am not from here, and the days of ole which you speak of I see no evidence of.  You asked the question earlier to give you five cases where the states attorney prosecuted officers and I shot back with give me five cases where officers have been accused.  Once again, you attempted to provide mis-informatio without having the fortitude to back it up.  I suggest to you sir you are a coward who hides behind this silly little forum.  I bid you a good day sir.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Apology for what Tom, that there is no justice for anyone that is not a police officer? That obviously if you are a police officer you can do what you want with basically no consequence to your action?    I almost feel like I should become a cop, if I do, at least in charles county, it appears that I would be able to do what I want with no recourse from my employers.  I am very disappointed of the outcome, but I will make a promise -- Don't come on my property and shoot my dog, because Mattias were way to kind and you wouldnt get that kindness from me.


 You couldn't pass the back ground they don't take psycho's.  I told you a long time ago, nothing would happen to Long!  You should have just quit then.  Also, you should sign your karmas you chicken sh##t.


----------



## RoseRed

...


----------



## desertrat

RoseRed said:
			
		

> ...


Good one.


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes, they solve murders quicker than this, but the investigation goes on longer.  That is why murderers don't go to trial for nearly a year.  Now, the Charles County Sheriff's Office has come out and conducted an investigation and cleared the officer.  This my friends, and not so much friends ends this.  Like I have been saying for all these posts, Nothing will happen to this cop because he did nothing wrong.  I accept this report as proof of my prediction.



The sheriff never explained why he justifies the officer firing at least 6 shots at point blank range. Nor why it took so long to make a statement.

Also the report in the paper said that the officer patted the dog on the head before turning around to look in the window of the garage....that's when the dog "nipped" him in the behind.

Nipped does not equal attack. Case may be closed but I will still have my opinions of the good ol' boy network...specifically the CCSD.


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> The sheriff never explained why he justifies the officer firing at least 6 shots at point blank range. Nor why it took so long to make a statement.
> 
> Also the report in the paper said that the officer patted the dog on the head before turning around to look in the window of the garage....that's when the dog "nipped" him in the behind.
> 
> Nipped does not equal attack. Case may be closed but I will still have my opinions of the good ol' boy network...specifically the CCSD.


 It took so long to make a statement because it would be irresponsible to make a statement until all of the facts are investigated.  Who cares if the dog nipped the officer or bit the officer violently, if the dog bites guy with gun...dog dies!


----------



## tom88

To the person who called Long my butt buddy in the karma thing and talked about the karma not being green for long, I don't really care about the Karma thing, I think it is all a little silly.  But when the guy makes a comment that people share his opinion over mine during this post and his stuff is red and mine is green, then I think that settles that.  Now I know all you forum geeks are going to give me red karma and thats ok, but man up and say who you are ya coward.  I have never met the officer who shot this dog, nor do I know anything else about him or his history other than the limited stuff I read here.


----------



## AndyMarquisLIVE

This effing thread's still going?


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Who cares if the dog nipped the officer or bit the officer violently, if the dog bites guy with gun...dog dies!



I care and I hope you're in the line of fire the next time this bozo gets an itchy trigger finger.....all six times.


----------



## spicy

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> I care and I hope you're in the line of fire the next time this bozo gets an itchy trigger finger.....all six times.



That's a nice thing to say.


----------



## Baywatchv8

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> The sheriff never explained why he justifies the officer firing at least 6 shots at point blank range. Nor why it took so long to make a statement.
> 
> Also the report in the paper said that the officer patted the dog on the head before turning around to look in the window of the garage....that's when the dog "nipped" him in the behind.
> 
> Nipped does not equal attack. Case may be closed but I will still have my opinions of the good ol' boy network...specifically the CCSD.



1. If you don't like the fact no justification was given use the Information act to get one.
2. If you had a guy coming at you with a knife with this crazy look in his eye's saying he was going to kill you, would you just wait until he actually stabbed you before you used your gun to protect yourself. Also I would empty the clip if the guy kept coming at me.


----------



## cattitude

Baywatchv8 said:
			
		

> 1. If you don't like the fact no justification was given use the Information act to get one.
> 2. If you had a guy coming at you with a knife with this crazy look in his eye's saying he was going to kill you, would you just wait until he actually stabbed you before you used your gun to protect yourself. Also I would empty the clip if the guy kept coming at me.



Stupid analogy.    It was a dog not a human with a knife.  This is getting ridiculous.


----------



## Charles

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> I care and I hope you're in the line of fire the next time this bozo gets an itchy trigger finger.....all six times.


Spread the love.


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> The sheriff never explained why he justifies the officer firing at least 6 shots at point blank range. Nor why it took so long to make a statement.
> 
> Also the report in the paper said that the officer patted the dog on the head before turning around to look in the window of the garage....that's when the dog "nipped" him in the behind.
> 
> Nipped does not equal attack. Case may be closed but I will still have my opinions of the good ol' boy network...specifically the CCSD.



Have you ever shot a moving target which was charging at you?  No.  Things don't just stop when someone shoots it.  This incident had to be properly investigated and this is the reason it took the sheriff so long to issue a final statement.  As far as you wishing I being shot, that is childish and immature.  You wish a person to be shot because they have a difference of opinion with you.  This my friends are the supporters of the Mattias!!!


----------



## MiMiMi

I agree with you.  It makes me sick that Mr. Mattia is made out to be the innocent victim in this.  I have pasted just one of many pages that show that Mr. Mattia is an abusive person who has no problem showing violence against people.  But I guess that is okay.      
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.u...l.jis?caseId=2O00004272&loc=16&detailLoc=DSCR
This case has just become a way for Mr. Mattia to get back at the police for all of the run ins he and his son have had with them.  He doesn't care about justice he cares about revenge.


----------



## tom88

*Gross Negligence.*



			
				ITS ME said:
			
		

> Well then throw up if it makes you so sick.  Max was the innocent victim in this whole situation.  I don't give a rats putuddie of what the owners have done, or what the son has done, what I care about is the fact that this low life of a public servant has the credibility to bulls8t his way through the investigation.  He is a flat out loser that does not deserve the respect of being a man in uniform unless it is a prison uniform.  Long is a disgrace to the Charles County Police Department and I for one am ashamed to say I live in a County that backs up a three time trigger happy careless officer on the force.
> 
> If you care to bring up dirt on the Mattias, maybe you should also bring up the lawsuit that Long is involved in as well.  Mr. Long's nose is not particularly clean either.
> 
> Since Long will face no reprimand for his gross negligence that occurred on May 15, I assure you that he will at one time or another in his career will again pull his gun out and become trigger happy one more time.  The next time it may be a child and I promise you that this case with Max and the other two cases will come back and bite the sheriffs office so hard that they will wish they fired him the first time around.
> 
> and MiMi, if you want to try to discredit someone, I would suggest you make sure your link goes to the appropriate page.  Next time, check your hero Mr. Long.
> 
> What can we expect, look at the  source.



Here is a reasonable way to settle this.  If it was GROSS NEGLIGENCE then Long is not protected under the law.  I suggest the Mattias file a law suit and have a non-biased judge rule on the matter.  Now if this judge rules in the Mattia's favor, I would then submit I was wrong and publicly apologize.    Now the Mattias have to be the persons who initiate this lawsuit.  I would submit there is no basis and several lawyers have already told them so and that is why no suit is filed.  If the Mattias don't file or if they loose any suit would their supporters publicly apologize?


----------



## tom88

Hey it's me.  Why don't you sign your karma.  The Karma thing doesn't really matter to me, but I would like to know who is giving it.  See I sign mine so I can get it back, good or bad.  But you geeks out there are so afraid someone might give you red you are scared to sign.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Well no, Tom I believe they have not filed a suit, not because several lawyers have told them there is no basis, I would think that it would be because under the laws that we have as poorly as they are, an animal is considered "property".
> 
> I would wonder why if Max is considered property, why they couldn't sue for destruction of property, because if you vandalize someone's property you could be charged.   I think the law works for the crooks rather than the victims and this despicable man is living proof of it.    The only person (using the term loosely) would be the officer that shot and killed their faithful friend.




Well It's Me, the dog is PROPERTY.  But people can and do bring lawsuits when their property has been destroyed all the time!  So if several lawyers have told them there is no basis, then why the hell don't you believe what they are saying!!!!!

Geeezzzzz


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hey it's me.  Why don't you sign your karma.  The Karma thing doesn't really matter to me, but I would like to know who is giving it.  See I sign mine so I can get it back, good or bad.  But you geeks out there are so afraid someone might give you red you are scared to sign.


----------



## otter

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Well considering that this guy is already being sued for not paying a bill  , would be really be worth it to pay an attorney, and the court fees to file a suit against a ,  that cant pay is own bill.  So when the judge would find him guilty and ordered to pay -- odds of him paying his obligations are what??? based upon public information?



Tom can't connect the dots on a 3 dot picture, why ya wanna get all abstract on him?


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Well considering that this guy is already being sued for not paying a bill  , would be really be worth it to pay an attorney, and the court fees to file a suit against a ,  that cant pay is own bill.  So when the judge would find him guilty and ordered to pay -- odds of him paying his obligations are what??? based upon public information?


 Based on public information the guy hasn't been found guilty of anything.  Show me where he has?


----------



## u gotta love me

otter said:
			
		

> Tom can't connect the dots on a 3 dot picture, why ya wanna get all abstract on him?


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Based on public information the guy hasn't been found guilty of anything.  Show me where he has?



I certainly don't know how well you know the banking system, but I  can assure you that they don't go after someone for $4,000 plus bucks without knowing that they'll get every dime.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I certainly don't know how well you know the banking system, but I  can assure you that they don't go after someone for $4,000 plus bucks without knowing that they'll get every dime.


 People file frivolous lawsuits all the time.  IE: judge in DC sues for 50 million for a pair of pants!


----------



## camily

Ishewawa!!!!!!!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> People file frivolous lawsuits all the time.  IE: judge in DC sues for 50 million for a pair of pants!



Yes, but Tom that was a totally different kind of case.  A creditor sues you when you OWE THEM MONEY, not when they are not satisfied, wait, let me re-phrase that, they do sue you when they are not satisfied that you are  paying them as agreed.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Yes, but Tom that was a totally different kind of case.  A creditor sues you when you OWE THEM MONEY, not when they are not satisfied, wait, let me re-phrase that, they do sue you when they are not satisfied that you are  paying them as agreed.


 There are disputes with vendors all the time.  You pay for a service and the service is not completed to your satisfaction so you withhold payment until the service is satisfied.  Or someone under estimates work on your home and then inflates the price of the work done.  These things are settled in a court.  Thats what the court is for.  Now the Mattias and you all say the guy did something wrong, and many have said the Sheriff's Dept. is corrupt and can't police their own.  I merely suggested they Mattia's file suit to settle this claim.  Surely if a court found the officer at fault, the Sheriff's Office would have to pay.  I submit, the Mattia's have looked into this but no lawyer will take the case because there is none!  Prove me wrong!


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> There are disputes with vendors all the time.  You pay for a service and the service is not completed to your satisfaction so you withhold payment until the service is satisfied.  Or someone under estimates work on your home and then inflates the price of the work done.  These things are settled in a court.  Thats what the court is for.  Now the Mattias and you all say the guy did something wrong, and many have said the Sheriff's Dept. is corrupt and can't police their own.  I merely suggested they Mattia's file suit to settle this claim.  Surely if a court found the officer at fault, the Sheriff's Office would have to pay.  I submit, the Mattia's have looked into this but no lawyer will take the case because there is none!  Prove me wrong!



Well, the bank isn't a vendor.  There is a case, as Mr. Triggerfinger destroyed personal property of the Mattias.

Getting back to Rodney King...I certainly think very little of Rodney King.  However, these guys showed police brutality and paid through the nose, as well they should.  Of course Rodney King is scum...

Whatever the Mattias did, that has no bearing on a case against Mr. Triggerfinger.  If they can find a pro bono lawyer, they can probably sue big time.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Well, the bank isn't a vendor.  There is a case, as Mr. Triggerfinger destroyed personal property of the Mattias.
> 
> Getting back to Rodney King...I certainly think very little of Rodney King.  However, these guys showed police brutality and paid through the nose, as well they should.  Of course Rodney King is scum...
> 
> Whatever the Mattias did, that has no bearing on a case against Mr. Triggerfinger.  If they can find a pro bono lawyer, they can probably sue big time.


 I bet they loose!  If they had a case, they wouldn't need a lawyer pro bono.  If they had a case, there are big pockets with the Charles County Government and any lawyer would be chomping at the bit to get involved in this case!  Or now will you say that all the lawyers in Southern Maryland are corrupt and afraid of going after county government as well?


----------



## Max's Mom

"88" check your private mail and thanks!


----------



## tom88

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> "88" check your private mail and thanks!


 Hey Max's mom.  Your using this post as a sounding board, answer the question.  Why not file a lawsuit?

Did the dog bite the neighbor's arm?


----------



## Max's Mom

To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago.   The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job.   Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did".  What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.


----------



## MiMiMi

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Well then throw up if it makes you so sick.  Max was the innocent victim in this whole situation.  I don't give a rats putuddie of what the owners have done, or what the son has done, what I care about is the fact that this low life of a public servant has the credibility to bulls8t his way through the investigation.  He is a flat out loser that does not deserve the respect of being a man in uniform unless it is a prison uniform.  Long is a disgrace to the Charles County Police Department and I for one am ashamed to say I live in a County that backs up a three time trigger happy careless officer on the force.
> 
> If you care to bring up dirt on the Mattias, maybe you should also bring up the lawsuit that Long is involved in as well.  Mr. Long's nose is not particularly clean either.
> 
> Since Long will face no reprimand for his gross negligence that occurred on May 15, I assure you that he will at one time or another in his career will again pull his gun out and become trigger happy one more time.  The next time it may be a child and I promise you that this case with Max and the other two cases will come back and bite the sheriffs office so hard that they will wish they fired him the first time around.
> 
> and MiMi, if you want to try to discredit someone, I would suggest you make sure your link goes to the appropriate page.  Next time, check your hero Mr. Long.
> 
> What can we expect, look at the  source.


 You also can check your facts.  Charles County DOES NOT have a police department.  They have a Sheriff's Office.  I guess that is all that I can expect when I look at you as the source of that information.  And Officer Long is not my hero.  I was merely making the point that according to the law which was written by people you helped elect there was no crime committed.  And I was making the point about the record to show that you can't pick and choose which laws to abide by.  You can't be the innocent victim one day and the person breaking the laws the next.  Yes I feel bad for the dog that he was killed since he is after all a dog and doesn't understand why this officer was here.  It was an unfortunate case where no one won.  Plain and simple.  And get a grip about the "wonder if it was a child" statement.  Do you know any children that can take down an adult male?  I don't think so.  I don't think any adult male would view a child as a threat.  Get Real.  And I agree with Tom88 that if they have such a strong suit why not take it to court.  That way they could subpeona all of the police/medical records and a judge could decide.  Oh that's right the conspiracy that is being waged against the Mattias because you know that the SHERIFF'S OFFICE not POLICE DEPT as you so inaccurately stated have nothing better to do.


----------



## General Lee

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> I forgot to mention when Sheriff Coffey came to our home my husband asked him if pictures were taken of the so called "Bite" and the Sheriff said he didn't think so.  If Officer Long was taken to an ER shouldn't they have documented or taken a picture of the bite.  Again, things are not adding up with the BITE STORY.  We want to see documentation that he was even bitten.  Where can we get this from?  If we ever get a final report I would think it would mention the officer was taken to the ER and treated, but we have not gotten that report nor has an official statement been made by Charles County Sheriff's Office.



It doesn't matter if there is a bite wound. The Officer evidently felt and saw a threat and he protected himself. If a bad guy points a gun at a police officer, do you think he is going to wait for the bad guy to shoot first first?...........I don't think so. The Officer protected himself from a threat whether he was bitten or getting ready to be bit. It doesn't matter from animal or human, a police officer has the  right to protect himself from harm.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hey Max's mom.  Your using this post as a sounding board, answer the question.  Why not file a lawsuit?
> 
> Did the dog bite the neighbor's arm?




First off Tom, Max's Mom isn't using this post as a sounding board, it has been us that has kept the board going, not her.

She is a better woman than I would be for answering your question.   You insist on getting an answer for the dog and the neighbor, how about being so persistent in getting an answer on two other things.

First,  why did this officer shoot and kill two other dogs? There are officers  on the force a lot longer than him, and haven't shot at a single dog; and 

Second how can an officer arrest someone for not paying a debit, but according to the public records be basically in the same situation as the person that he is arresting?  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

How about pushing for those answers Tom?     I hope it doesn't happen, but when it does, trigger happy Barney Fife will shoot and kill again, one can say that the odds of these past three incidents will again come back and haunt the sheriffs office again and again.


----------



## dawn

General Lee said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if there is a bite wound. The Officer evidently felt and saw a threat and he protected himself. If a bad guy points a gun at a police officer, do you think he is going to wait for the bad guy to shoot first first?...........I don't think so. The Officer protected himself from a threat whether he was bitten or getting ready to be bit. It doesn't matter from animal or human, a police officer has the  right to protect himself from harm.



How about just staying away from a dog that is chained up.  Its not rocket science it is?


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> First off Tom, Max's Mom isn't using this post as a sounding board, it has been us that has kept the board going, not her.
> 
> She is a better woman than I would be for answering your question.   You insist on getting an answer for the dog and the neighbor, how about being so persistent in getting an answer on two other things.
> 
> First,  why did this officer shoot and kill two other dogs? There are officers  on the force a lot longer than him, and haven't shot at a single dog; and
> 
> Second how can an officer arrest someone for not paying a debit, but according to the public records be basically in the same situation as the person that he is arresting?  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
> 
> How about pushing for those answers Tom?     I hope it doesn't happen, but when it does, trigger happy Barney Fife will shoot and kill again, one can say that the odds of these past three incidents will again come back and haunt the sheriffs office again and again.


 I do think there is a big difference between not paying Sears for say a tv and not paying support to the mother or whoever is taking care of your children.  Especially when you have enough money to purchase drugs.  Just a thought.


----------



## calamity jane

What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> It does prove that the dog had a history of aggression, as he did attack someone in the past.
> It's sad that your dog had to die and I know your family misses him, but there's something I've wondered about this whole thread. Why was he tied out wearing a choke chain instead of a regular collar? I'm not sure it would have anything to do with either side of the argument, it's just puzzling to me because it seems like you were afraid he would/could get loose.


----------



## dawn

calamity jane said:
			
		

> It does prove that the dog had a history of aggression, as he did attack someone in the past.
> It's sad that your dog had to die and I know your family misses him, but there's something I've wondered about this whole thread. Why was he tied out wearing a choke chain instead of a regular collar? I'm not sure it would have anything to do with either side of the argument, it's just puzzling to me because it seems like you were afraid he would/could get loose.




Long has a history of shooting dogs, as he did in the past (twice).


----------



## calamity jane

dawn said:
			
		

> Long has a history of shooting dogs, as he did in the past (twice).



No one is questioning whether Dep. Long shot the dog or not. We all know he shot Max. What was in question was if Long was justified in shooting the dog, and if the dog was loose or tied. 
A history of biting would definitely show that the dog would very likely go after and bite someone. The Mattias knew this (having now admitted the dog has bitten in the past), and I very strongly suspect that is the reason he was wearing a chain for a collar.
As far as the other 2 dogs Dep. Long has reportedly shot, I have not been able to get any details except what I read on here. Which is, that at least one was at an owners request after being attacked by their own dog. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding both shootings. If you have details, why not provide a link for others to see.


----------



## Poohhunny1605

calamity jane said:
			
		

> It does prove that the dog had a history of aggression, as he did attack someone in the past.
> It's sad that your dog had to die and I know your family misses him, but there's something I've wondered about this whole thread. Why was he tied out wearing a choke chain instead of a regular collar? I'm not sure it would have anything to do with either side of the argument, it's just puzzling to me because it seems like you were afraid he would/could get loose.



We have a beagle and 2 jack russells and neither are very harmful dogs, but I have seen my dogs growl and be very mean toward people they do not like.  I keep both my jack russells and my mom/stepdads beagle on a choke chain because we live near a highly traveled road and if any of the 3 get loose they will more or less get hit.  So, doesn't necessarily mean that this dog Max was a "mean" dog.  Maybe the dog felt threatened as well as the cop did which made him bite the officer, but the officer could have kicked or pushed the dog away too.  Thinking maybe a German Shepard at most couldn't be more than 200lbs and the cop being trained to fight off people that could be bigger than that.  I'm sure he could have gotten away or if he was cornered kick the dog and run to his car or something? 

I don't think he necessarily had to shoot the dog? Now if the dog was on top of him and biting his face off, I would feel differently about this. JMO


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> First off Tom, Max's Mom isn't using this post as a sounding board, it has been us that has kept the board going, not her.
> 
> She is a better woman than I would be for answering your question.   You insist on getting an answer for the dog and the neighbor, how about being so persistent in getting an answer on two other things.
> 
> First,  why did this officer shoot and kill two other dogs? There are officers  on the force a lot longer than him, and haven't shot at a single dog; and
> 
> Second how can an officer arrest someone for not paying a debit, but according to the public records be basically in the same situation as the person that he is arresting?  Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
> 
> How about pushing for those answers Tom?     I hope it doesn't happen, but when it does, trigger happy Barney Fife will shoot and kill again, one can say that the odds of these past three incidents will again come back and haunt the sheriffs office again and again.


 Not paying a debt is not a criminal offense, however not supporting your child is.  I do not see Long on this forum talking about this but I certainly have seen posts from "Max's Mom".  She is using this as a sounding board otherwise I wouldn't see her Dawn.  If she is going to be here she is subject to the same things the rest of us are.


----------



## tom88

Poohhunny1605 said:
			
		

> We have a beagle and 2 jack russells and neither are very harmful dogs, but I have seen my dogs growl and be very mean toward people they do not like.  I keep both my jack russells and my mom/stepdads beagle on a choke chain because we live near a highly traveled road and if any of the 3 get loose they will more or less get hit.  So, doesn't necessarily mean that this dog Max was a "mean" dog.  Maybe the dog felt threatened as well as the cop did which made him bite the officer, but the officer could have kicked or pushed the dog away too.  Thinking maybe a German Shepard at most couldn't be more than 200lbs and the cop being trained to fight off people that could be bigger than that.  I'm sure he could have gotten away or if he was cornered kick the dog and run to his car or something?
> 
> I don't think he necessarily had to shoot the dog? Now if the dog was on top of him and biting his face off, I would feel differently about this. JMO


 I respect your opinon, but am I correct to assume that you believe harm has to come to a police officer by way of a dog weighing over 100 pounds before that officer is allowed to use lethal force?  If it were my son or daughter who were the police officer, or my wife who were the police officer I wouldn't want their face to be biten off before they ended the threat.  Just my opinion.


----------



## tom88

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago.   The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job.   Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did".  What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.



Now I read a bunch of times throughout this how this was such a docile dog who would never hurt anyone.  I believe either you or your husband were quoted as saying so, however I concede I may be wrong about that.  But certainly your supporters have been trying to convince these people that the dog was docile and wouldn't attack.  Well here we go, I guess the dog did attack.  

You have no basis for a lawsuit and I challenge you to find an attorney who will take the case.  I first felt sorry for your family for the loss of your family pet, however by you keeping this nonsense going by commenting and feeding these minions you have here is irresponsible.  

A horrible tragedy occurred on May 15th.  A loving family pet was put down by a police officer doing his duty.  Case closed.


----------



## tom88

Ok we all know that long is your ream guy. There is no other reason for you to stick up for him other than the fact that you want to be his butt buddy

The above is what you get from the cowardly Mattia supporters.  Unsigned of course.  Those of you leaving the red karma, sign it.  I don't care.  I just want to know who is man or woman enough to share an opinion.  I could care not if I have green or red.

There you go, I have turned my Karma off.  So now bring it!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I respect your opinon, but am I correct to assume that you believe harm has to come to a police officer by way of a dog weighing over 100 pounds before that officer is allowed to use lethal force?  If it were my son or daughter who were the police officer, or my wife who were the police officer I wouldn't want their face to be biten off before they ended the threat.  Just my opinion.




Tom, what I believe allot of people are meaning when they makes comments like that is that just because a dog growls or barks at you there is no reason to shoot.  We can go back to the mailman issue.  Mail people do not carry guns and come across "vicious" dogs daily and they make it daily unscathed.  In my opinion Long used excessive force by shooting at Max when there is no proof other than the word of the police department that the man was bitten.   While Max may have snipped at another person in the past, so what, Long is trained in his career (or supposed to be anyway) and he should be prepared for the unexpected.   He obviously is neither.    I think that just because a dog shows his/her teeth or growls, or even barks, does not mean he is vicious and does not justify being shot, I would say that the dog is doing his job and protecting his house.  While yes, we all know that Long was doing his job in serving a warrant, but one would think that you have to be prepared to come across all kinds of instances when serving warrants on people and with his past knowledge of the Mattias having Max, he should have been prepared and not with a gun.  Regardless if he "alleged" he saw the lead and no dog attached, he being a police officer should have been better prepared.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Now I read a bunch of times throughout this how this was such a docile dog who would never hurt anyone.  I believe either you or your husband were quoted as saying so, however I concede I may be wrong about that.  But certainly your supporters have been trying to convince these people that the dog was docile and wouldn't attack.  Well here we go, I guess the dog did attack.
> 
> You have no basis for a lawsuit and I challenge you to find an attorney who will take the case.  I first felt sorry for your family for the loss of your family pet, however by you keeping this nonsense going by commenting and feeding these minions you have here is irresponsible.
> 
> A horrible tragedy occurred on May 15th.  A loving family pet was put down by a police officer doing his duty.  Case closed.




Yeah, by an officer that should not carry a weapon, because apparently any dog that he comes across is dead!


----------



## PrchJrkr

dawn said:
			
		

> Yeah, by an officer that should not carry a weapon, because apparently any dog that he comes across is dead!


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Ok we all know that long is your ream guy. There is no other reason for you to stick up for him other than the fact that you want to be his butt buddy
> 
> The above is what you get from the cowardly Mattia supporters.  Unsigned of course.  Those of you leaving the red karma, sign it.  I don't care.  I just want to know who is man or woman enough to share an opinion.  I could care not if I have green or red.
> 
> There you go, I have turned my Karma off.  So now bring it!




Well if you dont care if you have red or green, then why did you turn it off?


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> In my opinion Long used excessive force by shooting at Max when there is no proof other than the word of the police department that the man was bitten.
> 
> While Max may have snipped at another person in the past, so what, Long is trained in his career (or supposed to be anyway) and he should be prepared for the unexpected.   .



This is your opinion.  Why haven't the Mattia's filed suit?  The experts who investigate this sort of things opinion counts and they found Long justified in his use of force.  This is why the Mattia's haven't filed suit because they will lose.  Just as I told you weeks ago, nothing will happen to Long, no suit will be won.

What training do you have which would qualify you as an expert in the use of force?  It seems to me Long's training did kick in and he ended the threat.


----------



## Poohhunny1605

tom88 said:
			
		

> I respect your opinon, but am I correct to assume that you believe harm has to come to a police officer by way of a dog weighing over 100 pounds before that officer is allowed to use lethal force?  If it were my son or daughter who were the police officer, or my wife who were the police officer I wouldn't want their face to be biten off before they ended the threat.  Just my opinion.



I just feel that if a dog that is 100lbs but less than 200lbs in the officers training(assuming they train cops to be able to handle people of a substantionally large size in any situation) should be able to defend himself against a dog.  I understand that some dogs do have a little more of a fierce bite to them which they can lock their jaws, but that is not common in this breed.  Not saying that his face needs to be chewed off before making that move of ok shoot the dog now, but I'm sure if the dog grabbed an arm or a leg he very well could have kicked or punched with the other arm or leg to get a second to get away from the dog.  Even if he punched and couldn't make it to the cruiser to get inside, chances are he could have jumped on top of the cruiser and called for someones help, versus shooting the dog.  

Again, there could be 100 different scenarios as none of us were there and from reading the original story there were not any witnesses there to say this man killed the dog on purpose.  Its a "he said, she said" kinda case and its unfortunate for the family of their loss, but IMO, I don't believe you really have a case and if you did, I highly doubt they would take his gun or badge away from him.



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> Yeah, by an officer that should not carry a weapon, because apparently any dog that he comes across is dead!



Does this officer have a pet or has he ever had a pet? 

I don't think you can make this ASSUMPTION that "any dog that he comes across is dead". I highly doubt that is the case.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Well if you dont care if you have red or green, then why did you turn it off?



Turned it back on for you sugar.  But please sign your reds ok?


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> This is your opinion.  Why haven't the Mattia's filed suit?  The experts who investigate this sort of things opinion counts and they found Long justified in his use of force.  This is why the Mattia's haven't filed suit because they will lose.  Just as I told you weeks ago, nothing will happen to Long, no suit will be won.



Duh...Its kinda obvious,Tom, that there's no way a suit could be won when no one was there except Long and the dog. Just cuz a suit can't be won does not mean that Long didn't act with a total lack of common sense. Just the kind of guy you want on the streets with a gun


----------



## camily

dawn said:
			
		

> Long has a history of shooting dogs, as he did in the past (twice).


Because the owner was being attacked and called 911 and asked for help and TOLD the dispatcher the dog would have to be shot.


----------



## camily

Poohhunny1605 said:
			
		

> I just feel that if a dog that is 100lbs but less than 200lbs in the officers training(assuming they train cops to be able to handle people of a substantionally large size in any situation) should be able to defend himself against a dog.  I understand that some dogs do have a little more of a fierce bite to them which they can lock their jaws, but that is not common in this breed.  Not saying that his face needs to be chewed off before making that move of ok shoot the dog now, but I'm sure if the dog grabbed an arm or a leg he very well could have kicked or punched with the other arm or leg to get a second to get away from the dog.  Even if he punched and couldn't make it to the cruiser to get inside, chances are he could have jumped on top of the cruiser and called for someones help, versus shooting the dog.
> 
> Again, there could be 100 different scenarios as none of us were there and from reading the original story there were not any witnesses there to say this man killed the dog on purpose.  Its a "he said, she said" kinda case and its unfortunate for the family of their loss, but IMO, I don't believe you really have a case and if you did, I highly doubt they would take his gun or badge away from him.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this officer have a pet or has he ever had a pet?
> 
> I don't think you can make this ASSUMPTION that "any dog that he comes across is dead". I highly doubt that is the case.


He's been around my dogs several times. They're all still alive.


----------



## tom88

Sounds like a hero to me!


----------



## u gotta love me

camily said:
			
		

> He's been around my dogs several times. They're all still alive.




Well below is a quote of yours and you indicate that you have to get a pen because your dog doesnt like visitors, so maybe your dog is still alive because you have kept him away from barney fife.




			
				camily said:
			
		

> Thanks for the nice comment and I do agree that dogs (and cats) can sense things in people. I do have to admit that Mack (the rottie) is VERY territorial. He is great with all of us but doesn't like visitors. I am about to buy a pen I can put him in when we have company. I have had him through training ang I work for a vet so we are on the ball with all of that. All I can say is that likes the people he lives with and MIGHT accept others on occasion.


----------



## camily

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Well below is a quote of yours and you indicate that you have to get a pen because your dog doesnt like visitors, so maybe your dog is still alive because you have kept him away from barney fife.


Nope. He doesn't like people he doesn't know.


----------



## General Lee

dawn said:
			
		

> How about just staying away from a dog that is chained up.  Its not rocket science it is?



Police Officers don't shy away from threats or potential threats.


----------



## otter

General Lee said:
			
		

> Police Officers don't shy away from threats or potential threats.



    

And it appears some don't shy away from NOT using their noggin.


----------



## protectmd

Its common sense. Apparently what Charles County needs is a civilian oversight committee just like Prince Georges Co. has, in regards to their police dept. so that incidents like this are looked at from all angles including putting yourself in the victims shoes for once, and ensuring that the community is not only safe, but they are being treated properly, and things aren't hidden under rugs. This case isn't about a dog, but its about county government rights, and how far the community lets them go with it all. Its also about how far the community will allow county employee's to go. Its about Amendment rights as well. Its about alot of things. Its about ensuring that the community will no longer have to fear this threat in the future, the threat of their family pet being shot. Apparently... having a dog tied up, isn't enough to keep it from getting shot, so perhaps they should put some tips out there to ensure that other animals aren't euthanized through pistol fire in the future. Its about responsibility, for if the police officer did act properly, then who sets the SOP's for this sort of thing, and how do I keep my dog from being shot? Do I have to hide fido in my  basement muzzled and chained up to ensure that if a LEO was to come onto my property the dog wouldn't be shot? Just some thoughts... If he's behind the garage door barking, do I need to get steel plating so that shotgun blasts in the direction of the dog are stopped by the armored door? lol


----------



## FrankBama1234

protectmd said:
			
		

> Its common sense. Apparently what Charles County needs is a civilian oversight committee just like Prince Georges Co. has, in regards to their police dept. so that incidents like this are looked at from all angles including putting yourself in the victims shoes for once, and ensuring that the community is not only safe, but they are being treated properly, and things aren't hidden under rugs. This case isn't about a dog, but its about county government rights, and how far the community lets them go with it all. Its also about how far the community will allow county employee's to go. Its about Amendment rights as well. Its about alot of things. Its about ensuring that the community will no longer have to fear this threat in the future, the threat of their family pet being shot. Apparently... having a dog tied up, isn't enough to keep it from getting shot, so perhaps they should put some tips out there to ensure that other animals aren't euthanized through pistol fire in the future. Its about responsibility, for if the police officer did act properly, then who sets the SOP's for this sort of thing, and how do I keep my dog from being shot? Do I have to hide fido in my  basement muzzled and chained up to ensure that if a LEO was to come onto my property the dog wouldn't be shot? Just some thoughts... If he's behind the garage door barking, do I need to get steel plating so that shotgun blasts in the direction of the dog are stopped by the armored door? lol



That is the last thing this county needs. Just take a look at the mess that exists in PG County. They have had this board for years, and look at the crime that exists there. The police have their hands tied and no longer get involved for fear of prosecution. Believe me, I speak from experience. Be careful of what you wish for. If there was anything done wrong by the officer, 2 things would have happened: the Sheriff would have brought charges against the officer for departmental violations and the State's Attorney's Office would have reviewed the case for possible criminal prosecution. Obviously neither happened. Let it go already. The officer did nothing wrong. To keep your dog from being shot, don't commit any crimes which would warrant the officer looking for you, and don't keep aggressive dogs. They are a liability anyway. If you do keep these types of dogs make sure your insurance carrier is aware as the last they will do is protect you in a lawsuit if they knew nothing of the dog....


----------



## MMDad

Max's Mom said:
			
		

> To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago.   The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job.   Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did".  What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.


 Interesting. Today's Southern Maryland Extra has the following: (it's not online yet, so I cannot post a link)



> Mattia is not inclined to let the matter rest. He says Max never attacked anyone and was friendly enough to make himself visible to anyone approaching the house.



I understand why you wouldn't publicize the fact that Max has attacked people before, but to tell the paper that it never happened isn't quite true, is it?

As soon as you stop telling the truth, I have to doubt if any of your story is true.

My first instinct was that this deputy over-reacted and what he did is wrong, but now that your side of the story appears to contain lies I can only trust the story of the deputy. His story hasn't been shown to contain any lies.

Good luck winning a lawsuit. The sherriffs office is aware of what is being said on this forum and what the newspaper says. You can be sure that your admission that Max has bitten before and your inconsistencies would be brought to light if you did try to sue.


----------



## camily

MMDad said:
			
		

> Interesting. Today's Southern Maryland Extra has the following: (it's not online yet, so I cannot post a link)
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you wouldn't publicize the fact that Max has attacked people before, but to tell the paper that it never happened isn't quite true, is it?
> 
> As soon as you stop telling the truth, I have to doubt if any of your story is true.
> 
> My first instinct was that this deputy over-reacted and what he did is wrong, but now that your side of the story appears to contain lies I can only trust the story of the deputy. His story hasn't been shown to contain any lies.
> 
> Good luck winning a lawsuit. The sherriffs office is aware of what is being said on this forum and what the newspaper says. You can be sure that your admission that Max has bitten before and your inconsistencies would be brought to light if you did try to sue.



 MMDad


----------



## dmh

MMDad said:
			
		

> Interesting. Today's Southern Maryland Extra has the following: (it's not online yet, so I cannot post a link)
> 
> 
> 
> I understand why you wouldn't publicize the fact that Max has attacked people before, but to tell the paper that it never happened isn't quite true, is it?
> 
> As soon as you stop telling the truth, I have to doubt if any of your story is true.
> 
> My first instinct was that this deputy over-reacted and what he did is wrong, but now that your side of the story appears to contain lies I can only trust the story of the deputy. His story hasn't been shown to contain any lies.
> 
> Good luck winning a lawsuit. The sherriffs office is aware of what is being said on this forum and what the newspaper says. You can be sure that your admission that Max has bitten before and your inconsistencies would be brought to light if you did try to sue.



HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THAT THIS SO CALLED OFFICER HAS ALSO SHOT AND KILLED TWO OTHRE DOGS.   TRIGGER HAPPY FIFE IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN OR AT LEAST A GUN WITH A BULLET.  WATCH AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS THE NEXT TIME.  CHARLES COUNTY WILL BE THE LAUGHING STOCK WITH THE NEXT KILLING.


----------



## camily

dmh said:
			
		

> HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THAT THIS SO CALLED OFFICER HAS ALSO SHOT AND KILLED TWO OTHRE DOGS.   TRIGGER HAPPY FIFE IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN OR AT LEAST A GUN WITH A BULLET.  WATCH AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS THE NEXT TIME.  CHARLES COUNTY WILL BE THE LAUGHING STOCK WITH THE NEXT KILLING.


I have written the TRUTH about those twice before in this thread.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Long has a history of shooting dogs, as he did in the past (twice).


 Long Shot two pit bulls who mauled their owner.  Now do we not think this was justified?  Mattia is lying about his beloved Max not ever attacking anyone in todays Washington Post.  We know Max bit the neighbor before.  I wonder what else Mattia is lying about?


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Long Shot two pit bulls who mauled their owner.  Now do we not think this was justified?  Mattia is lying about his beloved Max not ever attacking anyone in todays Washington Post.  We know Max bit the neighbor before.  I wonder what else Mattia is lying about?



POINT OF THIS MATTER IS LONG HAS SHOT AND KILLED THREE, COUNT THREE, THREE DOGS.  HOW MANY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS HAVE SHOT AND KILLED THREE DOGS IN THIER CAREER?   IN CHARLES COUNTY YOU CAN PROBABLY ONLY COUNT ONE (1)


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> POINT OF THIS MATTER IS LONG HAS SHOT AND KILLED THREE, COUNT THREE, THREE DOGS.  HOW MANY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS HAVE SHOT AND KILLED THREE DOGS IN THIER CAREER?   IN CHARLES COUNTY YOU CAN PROBABLY ONLY COUNT ONE (1)


 The victim is Christopher Long who has been demonized by many of these formulites who have done nothign but put out false information in reference to this incident and attempt to make Long out to be a bad person without sharing all the information. 

Fact: Long did shoot two pit bulls, at the request of the owner of said dogs after the dogs mauled the owner and to put the dogs down was the only way to get to her.

Fact: Mattia said Max would never attack anyone, when we know from Mattia's wife Max attacked a neighbor two years ago. 

Fact: A proper investigation was completed on this manner and Long was justified in what he did!!!!


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Tom, what I believe allot of people are meaning when they makes comments like that is that just because a dog growls or barks at you there is no reason to shoot.    Regardless if he "alleged" he saw the lead and no dog attached, he being a police officer should have been better prepared.



The dog didn't bark or growl, the dog bit him.  Read today's paper.  The spokesman for the Charles County Sheriff's Office said the officer was bit.  

While your at it, please explain to me why Mattia is lying about Max never attacking anyone.  Are you still going to defend this guy after you KNOW he lies?


----------



## Merlin99

tom88 said:
			
		

> The dog didn't bark or growl, the dog bit him.  Read today's paper.  The spokesman for the Charles County Sheriff's Office said the officer was bit.
> 
> While your at it, please explain to me why Mattia is lying about Max never attacking anyone.  Are you still going to defend this guy after you KNOW he lies?


Unless you are Chris Long, you are talking out of your ass. You were not there and have no more info than anyone else, you are just interpreting it differently. Trying to convince anyone that you are some kind of authority on the situation makes you sound as officious as Hurricane Dan.


----------



## tom88

Merlin99 said:
			
		

> Unless you are Chris Long, you are talking out of your ass. You were not there and have no more info than anyone else, you are just interpreting it differently. Trying to convince anyone that you are some kind of authority on the situation makes you sound as officious as Hurricane Dan.



I said from the start none of us know what happened and we should let it be investigated.  What I do know is Mattia tells everyone this is a docile dog who would never bite anyone, then we find out the dog attacked a neighbor who was known to him.

Then this week, Mattia makes another statement saying Max never attacked anyone when we know this to be true.  

You are right that nobody except the police officer knows what happened.  However there was an investigation and the police determined he was justified in his use of force.  

All these supporters of Mattia have been harping about the officer killing two other dogs but would never explain the circumstance surrounding those killings.  Then we found out he killed two vicious dogs after they mauled their owner. 

I am by no means an expert.  I only defended this officer when the Mattia's tried to demonize him without knowing the facts.  Well here is a fact.  Mattia lied and the officer was found justified by an internal investigation.  That isn't coming from an officious Hurricane Dan, but the results of the investigation and Mattia being quoted in the newpaper.

Tell me what I am inerpreting differently?


----------



## ITS ME

General Lee said:
			
		

> Police Officers don't shy away from threats or potential threats.




How right you are, they dont shy away from things are are NOT threats or potential threats either,  they just shoot to kill and ask questions later, or better yet LIE later!


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Where did your information come from that the two dogs that long killed were at the request of the owner??????  I beleive that you have heard HEARSAY, NOT FACT, YOU ARE GOING ON WHAT WAS SAY ON THE BOARD, SO FLAT OUT LIE!  therefore you are putting out what could be incorrect information!



No, I am going by what was reported by the Charles County Sheriff's Office.  But if you have information to the contrary I would be happy to listen to it.  I have been asking on this board what the circumstances surrrounding the other dog shootings were and nobody on the board would provide that information.

I am only relaying what was reported by them. 

Now what is correct information is Mattia is quoted in this weeks addition of the Washington Post saying Max would not attack anyone, and we know that Max did in fact attack a neighbor.  That information was given to us by Mattia's wife.  BY THIS WE KNOW THAT MATTIA LIED.  So the question is, what other lies has he told?  Was the dog chained as he said it was?  Does the son not really live at that house?  Has the officer ever been at that house before?  All the information Mattias has provided has to be suspect because we know he has lied where as you all choose to believe the officer in question is lying but we have NO evidence to support that conclusion.

You have your agenda.  I have no dog (no pun intended) in this fight, the only reason I commented is because I initially thought it was unfair that people were trying to deamonize this police officer without the benefit of an investigation.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> How right you are, they dont shy away from things are are NOT threats or potential threats either,  they just shoot to kill and ask questions later, or better yet LIE later!



Please tell me what information you have which proves the police officer lied.


----------



## camily

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Where did your information come from that the two dogs that long killed were at the request of the owner??????  I beleive that you have heard HEARSAY, NOT FACT, YOU ARE GOING ON WHAT WAS SAY ON THE BOARD, SO FLAT OUT LIE!  therefore you are putting out what could be incorrect information!


I know of the cases first hand from the Long family.


----------



## jetmonkey

Is there some maxim that states that during an internet argument, the side using Caps Lock the most can generally be dismissed, kinda like Godwin's Law?


----------



## MiMiMi

I too have questioned whether the son actually lives there or not.  As you can see by the attached link to "zabasearch.com"  the only addresses listed for him were the Sunderland address and the Hughesville address.  And as you can see the Sunderland address is an old address by the recorded date.  Since Zaba gets its info from court documents, customer purchases, post office change of address forms, home purchase and rental agreements, county prop-erty records, etc. if Mr. Mattias son really had a different address I believe it would be listed here.  Either that or he lives in a box, doesn't have utilities, doesn't have a phone, never purchases anything and doesn't get mail.  Yeah right.   

http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?sname=joseph%20mattia&state=MD&ref=$ref&se=$se&doby=&city=&name_style=1

I really hope that after being exposed for what he is a liar.  Mr. Mattia finally takes down those awful signs in his yard.  If not I really hope that Officer Long sues him for defamation of character.  Either that or gets somes signes of his own about the Mattias.


----------



## cattitude

People have been know to list their addresses as the address of vacant lots.


----------



## MiMiMi

Your right.  If you don't want people to find you so that you have to take responsibility for the kids you bring into the world.


----------



## cattitude

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Your right.  If you don't want people to find you so that you have to take responsibility for the kids you bring into the world.



But that really isn't the issue here.


----------



## tom88

cattitude said:
			
		

> But that really isn't the issue here.



Your right that isn't the issue.  The issue is if the officer was justified in shooting the dog or not and it appears the officer was.  The reason so many people were outraged by this is because Mattia told everyone the dog was chained up and couldn't have attacked the officer.  Well we now know Mattia is a liar and where are all of his defenders?  Why are they not condemning him for lying?

They were all so quick to call the officer a liar where are they now?  Come on Sock girl, Dawn,  dmh, 88stringslouie, Otter, U gotta love me, and Woodyspda?  Explain why you choose to support a liar?


----------



## cattitude

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your right that isn't the issue.  The issue is if the officer was justified in shooting the dog or not and it appears the officer was.  The reason so many people were outraged by this is because Mattia told everyone the dog was chained up and couldn't have attacked the officer.  Well we now know Mattia is a liar and where are all of his defenders?  Why are they not condemning him for lying?
> 
> They were all so quick to call the officer a liar where are they now?  Come on Sock girl, Dawn,  dmh, 88stringslouie, Otter, U gotta love me, and Woodyspda?  Explain why you choose to support a liar?



How do you know the dog wasn't chained?  Because the officer said that?  NOBODY knows what happened that day but two individuals..the dog and the officer.  

Perhaps Mattia's defenders have just decided that this thread is pointless and are putting their energies elsewhere.


----------



## Woodyspda

Tom88, why don't you just crawl back into your closet and organize your skeletons??? 

I'm trying to figure out how to keep my pup from getting shot by an overzealous individual. 

how do you know Max attacked the neighbor????? from these forums where it was also stated that the neighbor admitted it was his fault and that Max had done his job.

Now that Mr. Mattea has made a public statement to the press.... let the press refute it.... same goes for the sheriff's statement....


----------



## itsbob

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Where did your information come from that the two dogs that long killed were at the request of the owner??????  I beleive that you have heard HEARSAY, NOT FACT, YOU ARE GOING ON WHAT WAS SAY ON THE BOARD, SO FLAT OUT LIE!  therefore you are putting out what could be incorrect information!


Actually I think that was printed in an article this Saturday, in the Southern Maryland section of the Washington Post.. Something about an owner getting attacked by her own dogs, when Officer long arrived she told him the only way he'd be able to help her was by killing her dogs first (she was still in the yard with the dogs I believe).


----------



## MiMiMi

cattitude said:
			
		

> How do you know the dog wasn't chained?  Because the officer said that?  NOBODY knows what happened that day but two individuals..the dog and the officer.
> 
> Perhaps Mattia's defenders have just decided that this thread is pointless and are putting their energies elsewhere.


 I would guess that they realized their upstanding Mattias aren't as honest as they first appeared.  I think everyone would have had alot more respect for the Mattias if they had of just told the truth about the other attacks the dog was involved in.  Once your credibility is gone what do you have left?


----------



## cattitude

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I would guess that they realized their upstanding Mattias aren't as honest as they first appeared.  I think everyone would have had alot more respect for the Mattias if they had of just told the truth about the other attacks the dog was involved in.  Once your credibility is gone what do you have left?



Attacks?  Reported animal bites?


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Tom88, why don't you just crawl back into your closet and organize your skeletons???
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how to keep my pup from getting shot by an overzealous individual.
> 
> how do you know Max attacked the neighbor????? from these forums where it was also stated that the neighbor admitted it was his fault and that Max had done his job.
> 
> Now that Mr. Mattea has made a public statement to the press.... let the press refute it.... same goes for the sheriff's statement....



Well I know Max attacked the neighbor because Mrs. Mattia told us he did.  I then read in the Washington Post where Mattia said the dog never attacked anyone.  So either Mrs. Mattia is lying, which I don't believe because her assertion was backed up by other in this forum, so that leaves me to believe Mr. Mattia was lying.  

Now the Newspaper reported the other incidents involving Long shooting other dogs as being justified after those dogs mauled their owner.  

Are you still going to defend Mattia after knowing he lied.  Sign your karma you coward!


----------



## tom88

cattitude said:
			
		

> How do you know the dog wasn't chained?  Because the officer said that?  NOBODY knows what happened that day but two individuals..the dog and the officer.
> 
> Perhaps Mattia's defenders have just decided that this thread is pointless and are putting their energies elsewhere.



I don't know if the dog was chained or unchained.  But I know we have two stories.  Mattia's and the officers.  We also know that Mattia lied.  

All I am saying is if Mattia lied about a substantial thing such as the dog attacking a neighbor, how are we to believe that he is telling us the truth about the dog being chained.

We have nothing to suggest that the officer has ever been dishonest where as we have factual information that Mattia has been dishonest.


----------



## itsbob

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I would guess that they realized their upstanding Mattias aren't as honest as they first appeared.  I think everyone would have had alot more respect for the Mattias if they had of just told the truth about the other attacks the dog was involved in.  Once your credibility is gone what do you have left?


the ONE THOUSANDTH post about a DEAD DOG!!!


Hurrah!!!!



HuRRAH!!!!


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well I know Max attacked the neighbor because Mrs. Mattia told us he did.  I then read in the Washington Post where Mattia said the dog never attacked anyone.  So either Mrs. Mattia is lying, which I don't believe because her assertion was backed up by other in this forum, so that leaves me to believe Mr. Mattia was lying.
> 
> Now the Newspaper reported the other incidents involving Long shooting other dogs as being justified after those dogs mauled their owner.
> 
> Are you still going to defend Mattia after knowing he lied.  Sign your karma you coward!



First off, I'm not defending anyone but the defenseless Max.
Second, I never called anyone a liar. 
Third, you're right, my energy is being spent elsewhere.... Work and worrying about other issues.

oh and I am not the one who sent karma to you, he who doesn't care about it.


----------



## spicy

itsbob said:
			
		

> the ONE THOUSANDTH post about a DEAD DOG!!!
> 
> 
> Hurrah!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> HuRRAH!!!!


 Too late bob, you made it 1004. Still a nice number though. It's got a nice little ring to it. 1004. yeah.


----------



## spicy

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> First off, I'm not defending anyone but the defenseless Max.
> Second, I never called anyone a liar.
> Third, you're right, my energy is being spent elsewhere.... Work and worrying about other issues.
> 
> oh and I am not the one who sent karma to you, he who doesn't care about it.



Theres no need to defend max. Nobody is blaming him. I think everybody here agrees that he was in the right to attack the officer.


----------



## calamity jane

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Tom88, why don't you just crawl back into your closet and organize your skeletons???
> 
> I'm trying to figure out how to keep my pup from getting shot by an overzealous individual.
> 
> how do you know Max attacked the neighbor????? from these forums where it was also stated that the neighbor admitted it was his fault and that Max had done his job.
> 
> Now that Mr. Mattea has made a public statement to the press.... let the press refute it.... same goes for the sheriff's statement....



A good way to keep your dog from being shot is to keep it in a nice, safe, secure kennel (if left outside) or in the house when your not there. And if you don't want the police snooping around your house, make sure you don't give them a reason. 
We know that Max attacked and bit the neighbor because Sharon Mattia said so, (or someone posing as Max's Mom).
The Mattias made a public statement back when this happened, too, to the newspaper and by hanging up those signs. They have been caught in a lie and now a reasonable person could question the credibility of the other information they put forth. I understand that your main concern is for the dog, but the reality is that the safety of a person will always take precedent over that of an animal. The Mattias knew their dog had bitten someone in the past and should have taken steps to not allow the chance of it happening again, such as putting him in a kennel. Any one who knowingly keeps an aggressive dog without confining it is asking for a lawsuit. 
Based on their confession that their dog had attacked someone before, my sympathy for them losing their dog started to wane a little, as there were steps that could have been taken (to prevent a second attack on someone), but weren't.
I think Dep. Long has been vilified enough with all the defamatory statements that have been made against him.
There are some bad cops out there committing crimes that the cop haters could go after, and were I aware of them, I would be right beside you, but this man is not one of them, at least pertaining to this issue.
From a purely practical point of view, I'm glad that Dep. Long was able to end a dog attack on himself before he was hurt badly enough to be laid off of work or disabled, thus becoming a drain on county taxes for himself and a family he could'nt support.
Sorry this post went so long and was attached to your post, but these are some things I felt needed to be said.


----------



## MiMiMi

cattitude said:
			
		

> Attacks?  Reported animal bites?


 I don't know about you, but I think being bitten by an animal is considered an attack.


----------



## cattitude

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I think being bitten by an animal is considered an attack.



I don't.  I've been bitten by quite a few dogs.  Sometimes it was even my fault.  I didn't consider one of those bites an attack.


----------



## MiMiMi

spicy said:
			
		

> Theres no need to defend max. Nobody is blaming him. I think everybody here agrees that he was in the right to attack the officer.


 I feel sorry for the dog that he died, but no everyone doesn't agree he should have attacked the officer.


----------



## mainman

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> but no everyone doesn't agree he should have attacked the officer.


Would you blake this down in Engrish prease....


----------



## MiMiMi

mainman said:
			
		

> Would you blake this down in Engrish prease....


 ???


----------



## tom88

cattitude said:
			
		

> I don't.  I've been bitten by quite a few dogs.  Sometimes it was even my fault.  I didn't consider one of those bites an attack.




What you consider to be an attack and what another considers to be an attack my be two different things.  What's important is the officers perspective as to if he is being attacked or not.  

I think any reasonable person would believe if a dog is biting you then you are being attacked.


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> No, I am going by what was reported by the Charles County Sheriff's Office.  But if you have information to the contrary I would be happy to listen to it.  I have been asking on this board what the circumstances surrrounding the other dog shootings were and nobody on the board would provide that information.
> 
> I am only relaying what was reported by them.
> 
> Now what is correct information is Mattia is quoted in this weeks addition of the Washington Post saying Max would not attack anyone, and we know that Max did in fact attack a neighbor.  That information was given to us by Mattia's wife.  BY THIS WE KNOW THAT MATTIA LIED.  So the question is, what other lies has he told?  Was the dog chained as he said it was?  Does the son not really live at that house?  Has the officer ever been at that house before?  All the information Mattias has provided has to be suspect because we know he has lied where as you all choose to believe the officer in question is lying but we have NO evidence to support that conclusion.
> 
> You have your agenda.  I have no dog (no pun intended) in this fight, the only reason I commented is because I initially thought it was unfair that people were trying to deamonize this police officer without the benefit of an investigation.




OK, well how do we know that it was actually sharon mattia that was posting on this fourm?   could it have been someone pretending to be her?????? 

Maybe some type of sick person that would try to come across as innocent and then put hurtful lies out there.  how do you know who you were corresponding with Tom?


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> Please tell me what information you have which proves the police officer lied.




Show me a photograph of bite -- show me the ripped uniform pants.    Tell me where the officer was when the son came home, that is my proof that he lied.   These people are paid to investigate, but they fail to photograph the alledged bite.  come the f on!


----------



## ITS ME

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Your right.  If you don't want people to find you so that you have to take responsibility for the kids you bring into the world.




Oh my god, now I have heard it all.  So the unibomber mother and father should take responisblity for the actions of their son.  So Jeffery Dalmers parents should take responsibility for their son.  So O.J. SImpsons parents should take responsbility.   You guys are so far fetched it is funny.


----------



## cattitude

tom88 said:
			
		

> What you consider to be an attack and what another considers to be an attack my be two different things.  What's important is the officers perspective as to if he is being attacked or not.
> 
> I think any reasonable person would believe if a dog is biting you then you are being attacked.



What is your interest in this..or did I miss that?

I am not reasonable.  And a dog bite is just that.  It is not an attack.


----------



## jetmonkey

spicy said:
			
		

> Theres no need to defend max. Nobody is blaming him. I think everybody here agrees that he was in the right to attack the officer.


In a thread full of funny posts, this *might* be the funniest.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your right that isn't the issue.  The issue is if the officer was justified in shooting the dog or not and it appears the officer was.  The reason so many people were outraged by this is because Mattia told everyone the dog was chained up and couldn't have attacked the officer.  Well we now know Mattia is a liar and where are all of his defenders?  Why are they not condemning him for lying?
> 
> They were all so quick to call the officer a liar where are they now?  Come on Sock girl, Dawn,  dmh, 88stringslouie, Otter, U gotta love me, and Woodyspda?  Explain why you choose to support a liar?




Oh, Tom I am still here.  I am trying to help the Mattias.  I want so bad for them to go after this loser of a cop.   I back the Mattias up 100 percent.  There is a cop that has killed three dogs.  I dont beleive a bit of any story about the owners called the two other times for the officer to shot and kill their dogs.   It is just too hard a pill to take.  This is a losing battle with losers that tend to take up for a police officer that is too trigger happy to be in the deparment.  While I respect and appreciate what the police department does for the community, there is at least, in the very least one bad apple on the tree that goes by the number 318 that I hope will never have to come to my aide.  This cop should be investigated for the wrong doings committed by him and the investigations should be done by someone outside of the CCSO.  I think in the very least that the Mattias are owed a dated photgraph showing the bite wound.  The police stick together and it was proven last week.  I do not beleive the Mattias are liars.  So what if Max bit a neighbor, do you know the circumstances behind the bite.  NO!  Did the neighbor sue them for the bite?     So until you know why Max would have alledgely bit the neighbor you can not speculate that he was in the wrong. 

It has been said many times before an I will also agree with it.  Long will shoot and more than likely kill again, and when he does, you watch, CCSO will not forget any of the prior shootings, because it will be thrown back in their face again and again, as long as he is on the force.  

So Tom you are incorrect, I am still a 100 percent behind the Mattias.  If Max bite before, so what, it apparently was for good reason, and if the Mattias said that Max has never attacked before, it could have been intended that he never unprovoked attacked.  there is a difference.


----------



## PrchJrkr

dawn said:
			
		

> .



And in rides the cavalry.


----------



## jetmonkey

dawn said:
			
		

> Long will shoot and more than likely kill again.


Another scenario is that their son will 'shoot' and more than likely reproduce again.


----------



## itsbob

dawn said:
			
		

> .  I think in the very least that the Mattias are owed a dated photgraph showing the bite wound.  The police stick together and it was proven last week.


If I show you a dated photograph of me from 1775 would you belive I was at the signing of the Declaration of Independence??


----------



## PrchJrkr

itsbob said:
			
		

> If I show you a dated photograph of me from 1775 would you belive I was at the signing of the Declaration of Independence??



From her postings, I could almost guarantee it.


----------



## dawn

itsbob said:
			
		

> If I show you a dated photograph of me from 1775 would you belive I was at the signing of the Declaration of Independence??




I guess I should have clarified, but I forgot the type of people I am dealing with.  The department should have in the very least shown a dated photo early on to "prove" that Longs word was of truth.  At this point NO I WOULD NOT BELEIVE THEM.   I classify them pretty much in the same catagory as I would place you!


----------



## MiMiMi

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Oh my god, now I have heard it all.  So the unibomber mother and father should take responisblity for the actions of their son.  So Jeffery Dalmers parents should take responsibility for their son.  So O.J. SImpsons parents should take responsbility.   You guys are so far fetched it is funny.


 Read the post again.  You obviously have misread or have no reading comprehension skills.  The kids I was referring to were the ones Mr. Mattias son should be taking responsibility for.  I was responding to a prior post that said that people give out addresses or vacant lots to which I replied (see if you can follow me now) Your right. If you don't want people to find you so that you have to take responsibility for the kids you bring into the world. The point I was making was that he had no other address anywhere so if he wasn't living in a cardboard box he was living with the Mattias.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> OK, well how do we know that it was actually sharon mattia that was posting on this fourm?   could it have been someone pretending to be her??????
> 
> Maybe some type of sick person that would try to come across as innocent and then put hurtful lies out there.  how do you know who you were corresponding with Tom?



Well you all seemed to believe her when she spoke to you about this before.  But forget about that.  We don't have to believe her, lets talk to the neigbor who was bitten.  You freaking people are unbelievable with your b.s. agenda.  I told you from the start you were jumping to conclusions but you don't want to admit your wrong.  Now the very person on this thread you have been defending is the same person you are going to question the identity of?  Please!


----------



## MiMiMi

dawn said:
			
		

> Oh, Tom I am still here.  I am trying to help the Mattias.  I want so bad for them to go after this loser of a cop.   I back the Mattias up 100 percent.  There is a cop that has killed three dogs.  I dont beleive a bit of any story about the owners called the two other times for the officer to shot and kill their dogs.   It is just too hard a pill to take.  This is a losing battle with losers that tend to take up for a police officer that is too trigger happy to be in the deparment.  While I respect and appreciate what the police department does for the community, there is at least, in the very least one bad apple on the tree that goes by the number 318 that I hope will never have to come to my aide.  This cop should be investigated for the wrong doings committed by him and the investigations should be done by someone outside of the CCSO.  I think in the very least that the Mattias are owed a dated photgraph showing the bite wound.  The police stick together and it was proven last week.  I do not beleive the Mattias are liars.  So what if Max bit a neighbor, do you know the circumstances behind the bite.  NO!  Did the neighbor sue them for the bite?     So until you know why Max would have alledgely bit the neighbor you can not speculate that he was in the wrong.
> 
> It has been said many times before an I will also agree with it.  Long will shoot and more than likely kill again, and when he does, you watch, CCSO will not forget any of the prior shootings, because it will be thrown back in their face again and again, as long as he is on the force.
> 
> So Tom you are incorrect, I am still a 100 percent behind the Mattias.  If Max bite before, so what, it apparently was for good reason, and if the Mattias said that Max has never attacked before, it could have been intended that he never unprovoked attacked.  there is a difference.


 But why did Mr. Mattias say Max never bit anyone if he did?  I don't understand if it was only an unprovoked bite that wasn't Max's fault why not say that?  Once you start being deceptive everything you say after that is questioned.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Show me a photograph of bite -- show me the ripped uniform pants.    Tell me where the officer was when the son came home, that is my proof that he lied.   These people are paid to investigate, but they fail to photograph the alledged bite.  come the f on!




You said in earlier posts that Sharon Mattia said the officer only needed a band aid.  How bad does the officer need to be bitten before he defends himself.  I don't think the officer has to be bitten at all.  I think if the dog is coming after him to blast the dog into the other world....which is what the Officer did!

Why don't you talk about Mattia lying.


----------



## tom88

cattitude said:
			
		

> What is your interest in this..or did I miss that?
> 
> I am not reasonable.  And a dog bite is just that.  It is not an attack.



My interest is to have the truth told and not deamonize this officer with false information.

I have never met the officer nor do I know him.

I am a government employee who resides outside of Charles County.

I initially said lets wait till the investigation is complete before we pass judgement, but many here didn't want to do that so I took a stance for the officer and my judgement was correct.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> Oh, Tom I am still here.  I am trying to help the Mattias.  I want so bad for them to go after this loser of a cop.   I back the Mattias up 100 percent.  There is a cop that has killed three dogs.  I dont beleive a bit of any story about the owners called the two other times for the officer to shot and kill their dogs.   It is just too hard a pill to take.  I do not beleive the Mattias are liars.  So what if Max bit a neighbor, do you know the circumstances behind the bite.  NO!  Did the neighbor sue them for the bite?      So until you know why Max would have alledgely bit the neighbor you can not speculate that he was in the wrong.
> 
> It has been said many times before an I will also agree with it.  Long will shoot and more than likely kill again, and when he does, you watch, CCSO will not forget any of the prior shootings, because it will be thrown back in their face again and again, as long as he is on the force.
> 
> So Tom you are incorrect, I am still a 100 percent behind the Mattias.  If Max bite before, so what, it apparently was for good reason, and if the Mattias said that Max has never attacked before, it could have been intended that he never unprovoked attacked.  there is a difference.




Well, I talked to the neighbor, a retired prince georges county police officer.  He said he had gone over to see Mattia, and the dog jumped up on the fence and bit him for no apparent reason.  He didn't sue the Mattia's because that is the neighborly thing to do, not sue.

Why is it you choose to ignore the fact that Mattia lied?  You are blinded by your emotion.  

While I am allowing the facts the true information we receive about this to guide me, you will never believe anything except what your tiny little brain has already conjured up.


----------



## Woodyspda

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well, I talked to the neighbor, a retired prince georges county police officer.  He said he had gone over to see Mattia, and the dog jumped up on the fence and bit him for no apparent reason.  He didn't sue the Mattia's because that is the neighborly thing to do, not sue.
> 
> Why is it you choose to ignore the fact that Mattia lied?  You are blinded by your emotion.
> 
> While I am allowing the facts the true information we receive about this to guide me, you will never believe anything except what your tiny little brain has already conjured up.



Now you speak for the neighbor???? "jumped up on the fence"????? was the gentleman ON the fence???? sounds hokie to me Tommy boy....

I'm not blinded by emotion.....but I am guided by common sense which tells me that it doesn't take 6 shots to kill a dog at point blank range....it also tells me that the GOB network is alive and well in Charles county.

I can twist words just as well as you tom. I'd love to read the actual report(s)..... I'm sure they've been lost though.


----------



## marybek

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Now you speak for the neighbor???? "jumped up on the fence"????? was the gentleman ON the fence???? sounds hokie to me Tommy boy....
> 
> I'm not blinded by emotion.....but I am guided by common sense which tells me that it doesn't take 6 shots to kill a dog at point blank range....it also tells me that the GOB network is alive and well in Charles county.
> 
> I can twist words just as well as you tom. I'd love to read the actual report(s)..... I'm sure they've been lost though.


 It seems to me that all of this information was reported in the newspapers either in the beginning of this or recently.  Why don't we all just listen to what is being said rather than putting our own twist to it.

The dogs mother did report that the dog bit the neighbor when the neighbor came over to the house.  The woman didn't say the neighbor did anythign other than lean on the fence, although she said the neighbor was cordial about the incident and said the dog was only doing his job.

The father of the dog in the newspaper is quoted as saying the dog never bit anyone, and early on he said the dog is very calm and would never bite anyone.  This isn't really true so we can't believe too much of what he is saying.

The police investigated this and good old boy network or not, they are all we have to go by.

The newspaper reported the other dogs this guy shot were in response to a violent dog attack.  I have been attacked by a seemingly nice dog...and received hundreds of stitches and plastic surgery as a result of this, so I understand the impact a dog bite can have.

I think the total information doesn't look good for the dog owner being honest.  jmo.


----------



## MiMiMi

marybek said:
			
		

> It seems to me that all of this information was reported in the newspapers either in the beginning of this or recently.  Why don't we all just listen to what is being said rather than putting our own twist to it.
> 
> The dogs mother did report that the dog bit the neighbor when the neighbor came over to the house.  The woman didn't say the neighbor did anythign other than lean on the fence, although she said the neighbor was cordial about the incident and said the dog was only doing his job.
> 
> The father of the dog in the newspaper is quoted as saying the dog never bit anyone, and early on he said the dog is very calm and would never bite anyone.  This isn't really true so we can't believe too much of what he is saying.
> 
> The police investigated this and good old boy network or not, they are all we have to go by.
> 
> The newspaper reported the other dogs this guy shot were in response to a violent dog attack.  I have been attacked by a seemingly nice dog...and received hundreds of stitches and plastic surgery as a result of this, so I understand the impact a dog bite can have.
> 
> I think the total information doesn't look good for the dog owner being honest.  jmo.


 Very well put.  The facts and nothing more.  That is all we have to go by.


----------



## dmh

Charles County officer ... 07-01-2007 04:28 PM Tell the truth. Long shot two dogs in the defense of a human being! Tom88  


Now tom you were there, you know what happened?  Exactly what is your connection with Long?


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 07-01-2007 04:28 PM Tell the truth. Long shot two dogs in the defense of a human being! Tom88
> 
> 
> Now tom you were there, you know what happened?  Exactly what is your connection with Long?



I have no connection with Long.  I have been asking people for this information about the other dogs for a long time now and nobody can provide it.  On Sunday the Washington Post reported the previous incidents. 

Now are you still defending Mattia's after knowing he lied to us?


----------



## madMAX

marybek said:
			
		

> The father of the dog in the newspaper is quoted as saying the dog never bit anyone, and early on he said the dog is very calm and would never bite anyone.  This isn't really true so we can't believe too much of what he is saying.



Again, we dont know the circumstances, of this, just like we dont know the cirumstances of the other two dogs that fife killed, speculation gets us nowhere.   Long appears to have lied and I am believing the good ole boy network is still here in good ole chuck county


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> Again, we dont know the circumstances, of this, just like we dont know the cirumstances of the other two dogs that fife killed, speculation gets us nowhere.   Long appears to have lied and I am believing the good ole boy network is still here in good ole chuck county




Where do you get that Long lied?  The newspaper reported the facts of the other two dogs.  The newspaper reported it was two pit bulls at the owners request after the dogs mauled the owner.

We do however know that Mattias lied.  Are you getting that or do you choose not to believe his wife?


----------



## MiMiMi

madMAX said:
			
		

> Again, we dont know the circumstances, of this, just like we dont know the cirumstances of the other two dogs that fife killed, speculation gets us nowhere.   Long appears to have lied and I am believing the good ole boy network is still here in good ole chuck county


 What don't we know.  We know the dog has bitten someone previously and we know that the owner said he never did.  If it was such an innocent occurence as it is made out to be, why did the owner lie about it?  If it was a case of the neighbor being in the wrong why not just state that.  It seems like the Sheriff's Office is asked to be truthful but the owners aren't.  Shouldn't truth go both ways?


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Where do you get that Long lied?  The newspaper reported the facts of the other two dogs.  The newspaper reported it was two pit bulls at the owners request after the dogs mauled the owner.
> 
> We do however know that Mattias lied.  Are you getting that or do you choose not to believe his wife?




Show me proof that long was bitten.  The newspaper only has what story the CCSO gave them.  Conveniently when called to ask for copies of the police report regarding those two instances, the reseponse would be, do you have a case number, or complaint name.  Otherwise there is no way of retrieving the information.


----------



## smcop

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> POINT OF THIS MATTER IS LONG HAS SHOT AND KILLED THREE, COUNT THREE, THREE DOGS.  HOW MANY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS HAVE SHOT AND KILLED THREE DOGS IN THIER CAREER?   IN CHARLES COUNTY YOU CAN PROBABLY ONLY COUNT ONE (1)


 I have shot two dogs in the line of duty.  One was run over by a drug dealer and needed to be shot because it was suffering.  The other had been attacked by another dog and was suffering.  I hope I never have to shoot a third under any circumstances because based on these postings I would be crucified before any of the facts of the first two came out!


----------



## MiMiMi

smcop said:
			
		

> I have shot two dogs in the line of duty.  One was run over by a drug dealer and needed to be shot because it was suffering.  The other had been attacked by another dog and was suffering.  I hope I never have to shoot a third under any circumstances because based on these postings I would be crucified before any of the facts of the first two came out!


 Unfortunately I am afraid that soon officers will be afraid to shoot at anything for fear of being sued.  Then we will really be in a mess.  It is not a perfect world and situations happen that officers wouldn't chose but you can't stop doing your job.


----------



## FrankBama1234

dawn said:
			
		

> Oh, Tom I am still here.  I am trying to help the Mattias.  I want so bad for them to go after this loser of a cop.   I back the Mattias up 100 percent.  There is a cop that has killed three dogs.  I dont beleive a bit of any story about the owners called the two other times for the officer to shot and kill their dogs.   It is just too hard a pill to take.  This is a losing battle with losers that tend to take up for a police officer that is too trigger happy to be in the deparment.  While I respect and appreciate what the police department does for the community, there is at least, in the very least one bad apple on the tree that goes by the number 318 that I hope will never have to come to my aide.  This cop should be investigated for the wrong doings committed by him and the investigations should be done by someone outside of the CCSO.  I think in the very least that the Mattias are owed a dated photgraph showing the bite wound.  The police stick together and it was proven last week.  I do not beleive the Mattias are liars.  So what if Max bit a neighbor, do you know the circumstances behind the bite.  NO!  Did the neighbor sue them for the bite?     So until you know why Max would have alledgely bit the neighbor you can not speculate that he was in the wrong.
> 
> It has been said many times before an I will also agree with it.  Long will shoot and more than likely kill again, and when he does, you watch, CCSO will not forget any of the prior shootings, because it will be thrown back in their face again and again, as long as he is on the force.
> 
> So Tom you are incorrect, I am still a 100 percent behind the Mattias.  If Max bite before, so what, it apparently was for good reason, and if the Mattias said that Max has never attacked before, it could have been intended that he never unprovoked attacked.  there is a difference.



Maybe if you were 110% behind them sonmething would happen. get a life. According to the Post someone is lying, and it isn't Long!!!!


----------



## Woodyspda

smcop said:
			
		

> I have shot two dogs in the line of duty.  One was run over by a drug dealer and needed to be shot because it was suffering.  The other had been attacked by another dog and was suffering.  I hope I never have to shoot a third under any circumstances because based on these postings I would be crucified before any of the facts of the first two came out!



thank you for putting those pups out of their misery... some WOULD give you a hard time about them....which is sad. I'm sure you've shot a deer or two also.

The question now is....did it take six shots to get the job done??? OK, the animals were already injured.... did it take more than 2??

tom88 would have you think that I side with the Matteas but I don't side with anyone specifically. I've yet to have tom88 answer my question succinctly. I'm getting really sick of him twisting people's words to justify HIS agenda. 

I have a beagle that will grab your pant leg (wanting to play) or may get overly anxious and misbehave in other ways. I also know of at least 5 big "menacing" (St. Bernards, Great Danes, Black Labs etc) dogs that just want to lean against a human friend and may scratch at or nudge you to let you know.... by tom88s definition, these are all "attacks" (I'll agree that they are bad behavior but not attacks)


----------



## Woodyspda

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> thank you for putting those pups out of their misery... some WOULD give you a hard time about them....which is sad. I'm sure you've shot a deer or two also.
> 
> The question now is....did it take six shots to get the job done??? OK, the animals were already injured.... did it take more than 2??
> 
> tom88 would have you think that I side with the Matteas but I don't side with anyone specifically. I've yet to have tom88 answer my question succinctly. I'm getting really sick of him twisting people's words to justify HIS agenda.
> 
> I have a beagle that will grab your pant leg (wanting to play) or may get overly anxious and misbehave in other ways. I also know of at least 5 big "menacing" (St. Bernards, Great Danes, Black Labs etc) dogs that just want to lean against a human friend and may scratch at or nudge you to let you know.... by tom88s definition, these are all "attacks" (I'll agree that they are bad behavior but not attacks)



oh, and to the individual leaving the "tard" karma..... show your face you immature mama's boy.


----------



## smcop

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> thank you for putting those pups out of their misery... some WOULD give you a hard time about them....which is sad. I'm sure you've shot a deer or two also.
> 
> The question now is....did it take six shots to get the job done??? OK, the animals were already injured.... did it take more than 2??



No it didn't take six shots to kill either of the dogs.  

I am a dog lover and have had several dogs all of my life.  In the one instance where the dog (which was a puppy) was run over by a drug dealer, it took one shot to put the dog down.  In the other instance, the dog was injured by another dog and was dying.  I shot the dog, and it jumped up and came towards me.  I delivered two more shots which put the dog down.  This was in an instance which I was prepared to shoot the dog.

I have offered no opinion in this matter, but can tell you that firing 7 shots from a Beretta 40 cal. handgun would take less than 3 seconds. 

I have been a police officer for 12 years and train with my firearm weekly.  If the officer was being chased or bitten by this dog, to fire 7 shots in the dog is not unreasonable.  As a matter of fact if the officer hit the dog 7 times I would say that he is likely and expert shot.  You have to remember what adreniline does to you during a critical incident, which this certainly was.

I know my views here are not going to be popular, but they are from an unemotional logical evaluation of the information provided.  I think any cop would say that it is tragic that this dog was put down, but if the information being put out by the dog owners has been proven to be inaccurate, then I think a horrible disservice has been done to this cop.


----------



## Dork

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> oh, and to the individual leaving the "tard" karma..... show your face you immature mama's boy.



I get about 3-4 of those a week.  I just installed a Karma tracker to catch this person.  I'll let you know who it is when they hit me with the tard bomb again.


----------



## smcop

07-02-2007 07:06 PM and if the cop is lying, then he's done a greater disservice to the community..a logical evaluation would also question the cops story.  

Hey why not just ask this question on the forum.  I will answer it.  You are absolutely correct.  The cop would be doing a greater disservice to the community if he were lying.  Unfortunately, the only person that has been proven to be lying here is the dog owner.

Don't hate the messenger.  I offered an opinion of the actions of the cop.  If you have a different opinion why not share it in the open?  Are you the lying Joe Mattia?  Probably that is why you want to stay hidden.


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> \tom88 would have you think that I side with the Matteas but I don't side with anyone specifically. I've yet to have tom88 answer my question succinctly. I'm getting really sick of him twisting people's words to justify HIS agenda.
> 
> \)



Tell me what words I am twisting?


----------



## u gotta love me

smcop said:
			
		

> 07-02-2007 07:06 PM and if the cop is lying, then he's done a greater disservice to the community..a logical evaluation would also question the cops story.
> 
> Hey why not just ask this question on the forum.  I will answer it.  You are absolutely correct.  The cop would be doing a greater disservice to the community if he were lying.  Unfortunately, the only person that has been proven to be lying here is the dog owner.
> 
> Don't hate the messenger.  I offered an opinion of the actions of the cop.  If you have a different opinion why not share it in the open?  Are you the lying Joe Mattia?  Probably that is why you want to stay hidden.



But the burden of proof should be on the police department and that would consistof proving that the dog actually attacked the officer and that has yet to be seen, so I have to disagree with yhou that the only person to be proven here is the dog owner, because the CCSO has yet to prove that the officer was biten.   it is not necessary to show the public the proof, but it should have been proven to Max's owner.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Tell me what words I am twisting?




Just about every word that you post!


----------



## spicy

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> But the burden of proof should be on the police department and that would consistof proving that the dog actually attacked the officer and that has yet to be seen, so I have to disagree with yhou that the only person to be proven here is the dog owner, because the CCSO has yet to prove that the officer was biten.   it is not necessary to show the public the proof, but it should have been proven to Max's owner.



I wonder how many times it has to be explained that the officer didnt even need to be bitten to justify his actions. As has been said many times before, should a cop wait until he has been shot to justify shooting a criminal wielding a gun?


----------



## donbarzini

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> But the burden of proof should be on the police department ............




Why? Do we suspend the Constitution just because it's a respresentative of a local government that is the accused?

:shakesheadruefully:


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Just about every word that you post!



See you can't even give me one example.  This is just another example of you trying to get a message across by throwing information out without being able to back it up.  Hoping people will believe your sensless dribble.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> See you can't even give me one example.  This is just another example of you trying to get a message across by throwing information out without being able to back it up.  Hoping people will believe your sensless dribble.




EACH AND EVERY WORD THAT YOU TYPE APPEARS TO BE A LIE -- WHAT PART ARE YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING.


----------



## ITS ME

a very big KUDOS to Mr. Thomas Hodge for his letter to the Editor of the Maryland Independent.

Very very very well said.


----------



## JohnnyReb

The officer was justified in shooting the dog.  If you disagree, you either have none of the factual information, or you are so biased against "The Man" you can't see clearly.


----------



## u gotta love me

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> The officer was justified in shooting the dog.  If you disagree, you either have none of the factual information, or you are so biased against "The Man" you can't see clearly.




I totally disagree.   The factual information is that a police officer shot and killed a dog that was tied to a chain.  The factual information is that the police officer that shot and killed the dog was no where to be seen when the son arrived home.   The factual information is that the sherriffs office is biased and obviously incompetent when it comes to investigating their own.  that sir is the factual information.


----------



## dmh

ITS ME said:
			
		

> a very big KUDOS to Mr. Thomas Hodge for his letter to the Editor of the Maryland Independent.
> 
> Very very very well said.




I will second that.  We know that it wasnt written by TOM88 on this fourm.  Mr. Hodge did write a very good letter, I wrote one also, but I guess I wasnt as kind to the CCSD so they didnt publish it.


----------



## PrchJrkr

ITS ME said:
			
		

> a very big KUDOS to Mr. Thomas Hodge for his letter to the Editor of the Maryland Independent.
> 
> Very very very well said.



He sounds like a  to me.

I hope you are female, because a man saying (typing) "kudos" is just ghey.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Mr. Hodge hit the nail on the head*



			
				dmh said:
			
		

> I will second that.  We know that it wasnt written my TOM88 on this fourm.  Mr. Hodge did write a very good letter, I wrote one also, but I guess I wasnt as kind to the CCSD so they didnt publish it.



He brings up
1)  show us proof of a bite
2)  why did Long have to fire all those shots at a chained-up dog?

No, the county is "thumbing their nose" at the taxpayers by allowing the fox to guard the hen house.  
If this were a hate-crime, you know sure as hell that Barbara Mikulski and the FBI would be investigating, not the damned CCSD.

People, get off your ass and vote this guy out of office the next voting cycle.  Hold everyone accountable for these cowboy shenanigans. 

Keep raising hell, writing letters, and force the commissioners to either hire an outside independent agency to investigate "Mr. Triggerfinger and his posse" or step the hell aside.

Get the good old boys out of dodge.  We don't distill moonshine down in these parts anymore.  And we don't have gun duels at sundown.

Let's find out about the treatment that Mr. Long had after the dog started whooping his ass and after he blew Max away.

Everytime I hear of this atrocity and the secretive behaviour of the administration of the CCSD, it grows one long hair up my a$$.


----------



## 88stringslouie

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> The officer was justified in shooting the dog.  If you disagree, you either have none of the factual information, or you are so biased against "The Man" you can't see clearly.



From what law school did your graduate?  You are defending this guy on hearsay from the CCSD.  We are defending Max by what we've seen.


----------



## FrankBama1234

ITS ME said:
			
		

> a very big KUDOS to Mr. Thomas Hodge for his letter to the Editor of the Maryland Independent.
> 
> Very very very well said.


I still don't get it. The officer was cleared and you people choose not to accept it. The facts are this: Long was there to serve a warrant on a dead beat dad who was using that as is address. Long was bitten by the dog. In self defense he shot the dog, up to 7 times. The dog was not wrong, neither was the officer. Unfortunately, when it comes down to either the person or the dog, the person has to survive. Would you rather have had the dog maul Officer Long to death? I wonder if you would be praising Max if he had killed officer Long. Another fact is that Mr. Mattia was caught in a lie. He stated from the beginning that Max was gentle and never hurt anyone. A neighbor has come forward and has the scars to prove Max had bitten him last year. So who in this case is credible? Mr. Mattia or Long? Long has no reason to lie, and even IF Max was tied up, he has a RIGHT to protect himself, just as Max has the right to protect his property. You honestly believe the Sheriff's Department purposely cleared Long of any wrongdoing even though they knew he was wrong?? This is the 21st century, not the 60s. If there was any possibility Long had committed some crime, Leonard Collins would have reviewed the case and decided if charges were warranted. We know that did not happen. As I have said from the beginning, if their dirt-bag son would have lived up to his obligation, none of this would have happened. The previous shooting of 2 other dogs keeps getting brought up. The facts in that case are a woman was attcked by her 2 pit-bulls and called police. When officers got there, the dogs would not allow anyone near the woman and she asked the officer to destroy the 2 dogs. So before we pass judgement, we should get our facts. The fact is this case is closed. Long did nothing wrong. The right thing for him to do was his job......tarck down losers like the Mattia's son and enforce the laws of this state.....Just my opinion.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

.....


----------



## ITS ME

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> I still don't get it. The officer was cleared and you people choose not to accept it. The facts are this: Long was there to serve a warrant on a dead beat dad who was using that as is address. Long was bitten by the dog. In self defense he shot the dog, up to 7 times. The dog was not wrong, neither was the officer. Unfortunately, when it comes down to either the person or the dog, the person has to survive. Would you rather have had the dog maul Officer Long to death? I wonder if you would be praising Max if he had killed officer Long. Another fact is that Mr. Mattia was caught in a lie. He stated from the beginning that Max was gentle and never hurt anyone. A neighbor has come forward and has the scars to prove Max had bitten him last year. So who in this case is credible? Mr. Mattia or Long? Long has no reason to lie, and even IF Max was tied up, he has a RIGHT to protect himself, just as Max has the right to protect his property. You honestly believe the Sheriff's Department purposely cleared Long of any wrongdoing even though they knew he was wrong?? This is the 21st century, not the 60s. If there was any possibility Long had committed some crime, Leonard Collins would have reviewed the case and decided if charges were warranted. We know that did not happen. As I have said from the beginning, if their dirt-bag son would have lived up to his obligation, none of this would have happened. The previous shooting of 2 other dogs keeps getting brought up. The facts in that case are a woman was attcked by her 2 pit-bulls and called police. When officers got there, the dogs would not allow anyone near the woman and she asked the officer to destroy the 2 dogs. So before we pass judgement, we should get our facts. The fact is this case is closed. Long did nothing wrong. The right thing for him to do was his job......tarck down losers like the Mattia's son and enforce the laws of this state.....Just my opinion.



Just as much as you don't get it, neither do I.  Officer Long was cleared by his own, how can anyone believe that his own would find him guilty?   That is just not possible in this county.

You are correct with the following -- Long did go to serve a warrant on a dead beat.      and that is all you are correct with

We have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the officer was bitten.  We have the officers word and I for one do not believe that word.   

You ask ... Would we be praising Max if he had killed Long?  I think you are going a little off the deep end with that statement.   

You state that Mr. Mattia was caught in a lie, he stated that Max was gentle and would never hurt anyone.  Well on a normal given day Max probably was gentle, we do not know the circumstance of that bite that the neighbor claims.    Had the Mattias came forward from the beginning and stated Max was a gentle dog, and has only bit once, people on this board would have crucified them just from that statement alone, so I don't see that they were wrong to withhold that truth.    

You ask who is credible in this case, surely it is not CCSO, they are trained to investigate and they failed to do their duty by not photographing the alleged injury to the officer so therefore they lost their credibility by not showing proof of the so called injury.

You are incorrect, the officer does have a reason to lie, if Max was tied up, he could not justify shooting a tied dog, because common sense would be to stay away from a chained dog, and for that he would have no reason to protect himself.

Do I honestly believe the SD would clear Long of any wrongdoing even through they knew he was wrong?  Yes I do, they want this matter to go away and if they admit wrong doing it surely wont go away.  

You are right this is the 21st century, and at this day and age we have up to date and sophisticated equipment to subdue animals vs being in the 60s where all they had were batons and bullets.

You say that if there were any possibility Long committed some crime that Leonard Collins would have reviewed the case -- well know he wouldn't because it is up to the SD to say that the officer was in the wrong before Collins would have anything to do with it.  So nope sorry!


The two prior shootings, well why cant a police report be obtained regarding those shootings, Frank, please tell me that.  

You are correct, the right thing for him to do is his job and track down dead beats, (would that be the pot calling the kettle black?) and to enforce the laws of this state, not go out there and be Rambo.

I am sorry, but I hope the Mattias keep up with this fight.  Coffey had my vote last time, but I assure you that next time, donald duck could be running against him and donald would have my vote.

Just my opinion


----------



## ITS ME

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> .....



Shouldnt you be working on your boat!


----------



## Mikeinsmd

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Shouldnt you be working on your boat!


Who you and how you know I gots a boat??


----------



## RoseRed

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Who you and how you know I gots a boat??


Reads other treads?  :shrug:


----------



## Mikeinsmd

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Reads other treads?  :shrug:


Hmmm.... possibly.


----------



## RoseRed

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... possibly.


It could happen...


----------



## Mikeinsmd

RoseRed said:
			
		

> It could happen...


I think K_Jo should investigate


----------



## RoseRed

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> I think K_Jo should investigate


You should PM her.


----------



## 88stringslouie

*Well CCSD, where are the "FACTS"?*

Why would the FBI and a senator's office get involved investigating hate crimes if they believe our county is so "balanced and fair"?

You bunch of administration apologists are never going to get it:
We don't believe the BS that has been brought forth as an internal investigation.

And no, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Long was bitten.  If you have it, bring it on.  Give us names, times, medical records, etc. The fox is guarding the hen house on this one.  

I say keep stirring the pot until we get some answers and some factual information that CCSD administration is willing to release to the public.

Unless this happens, this will continue to fester animosity and downright distrust of this police force.


----------



## Christy

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> We don't distill moonshine down in these parts anymore.


 
Well crap, that sux.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Christy said:
			
		

> Well crap, that sux.


----------



## ITS ME

Christy said:
			
		

> Well crap, that sux.




With stupid comments like that .. I guess you just gotta look at the source!


----------



## ITS ME

Charles County officer ... 07-03-2007 08:43 PM You are a freaking crazy loon.  I'm glad that damn stupid dog is dead.  

And comments like this, are just down right sick.


----------



## itsbob

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Why would the FBI and a senator's office get involved investigating hate crimes if they believe our county is so "balanced and fair"?
> 
> You bunch of administration apologists are never going to get it:
> We don't believe the BS that has been brought forth as an internal investigation.
> 
> And no, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Long was bitten.  If you have it, bring it on.  Give us names, times, medical records, etc. The fox is guarding the hen house on this one.
> 
> I say keep stirring the pot until we get some answers and some factual information that CCSD administration is willing to release to the public.
> 
> Unless this happens, this will continue to fester animosity and downright distrust of this police force.


You're wasting your time, and everyone's time who's pot you're stirring.. 

Find a better way to spend your free time.. go to the library and read to underpriviledged KIDS... 

And none of this seems to be festering ANYTHING except in your head, and maybe the heads of two others..


----------



## madMAX

itsbob said:
			
		

> You're wasting your time, and everyone's time who's pot you're stirring..
> 
> Find a better way to spend your free time.. go to the library and read to underpriviledged KIDS...
> 
> And none of this seems to be festering ANYTHING except in your head, and maybe the heads of two others..




No Bob, I beleive you are incorrect.  He is not wasting his time, I actaully think he is right. 

You seem to preach alot about doing other things for other people, what good deeds do you exactly do you do for others?  I sure hope its not anything that has to do with math, because there are many many more people than two that are disturbed by the findings of the CCSO, so maybe instead of preaching you should maybe take a tutor on math.


----------



## itsbob

madMAX said:
			
		

> No Bob, I beleive you are incorrect.  He is not wasting his time, I actaully think he is right.
> 
> You seem to preach alot about doing other things for other people, what good deeds do you exactly do you do for others?  I sure hope its not anything that has to do with math, because there are many many more people than two that are disturbed by the findings of the CCSO, so maybe instead of preaching you should maybe take a tutor on math.


WOW, extra points for creativity and ingenuity for your MPD's name.. 

Apparently you know nothing about me, so go back and climb under the rock you came from under.

We've had people get murdered in SOMD.. one shot in the head while in his car in his driveway, and it didn't make waves like this, I'd bet that thread didn't even come close to the 1000 mark.

Set your priorities, it was a DOG!!  You want to ##### about something useful, don't ##### about a cop trying to do his job.. or the unfortunate demise of a DOG.. ##### to the county gov't about our growing crime rate.. about the killing of innocent PEOPLE in the county.  

Before you bring up an unfortunate incident involving a friggin dog to our government's leaders, try to do some good for PEOPLE.


----------



## Merlin99

itsbob said:
			
		

> WOW, extra points for creativity and ingenuity for your MPD's name..
> 
> Apparently you know nothing about me, so go back and climb under the rock you came from under.
> 
> We've had people get murdered in SOMD.. one shot in the head while in his car in his driveway, and it didn't make waves like this, I'd bet that thread didn't even come close to the 1000 mark.
> 
> Set your priorities, it was a DOG!!  You want to ##### about something useful, don't ##### about a cop trying to do his job.. or the unfortunate demise of a DOG.. ##### to the county gov't about our growing crime rate.. about the killing of innocent PEOPLE in the county.
> 
> Before you bring up an unfortunate incident involving a friggin dog to our government's leaders, try to do some good for PEOPLE.



Bob,
The problem is, I like most dogs, not so much people.


----------



## madMAX

itsbob said:
			
		

> WOW, extra points for creativity and ingenuity for your MPD's name..
> 
> Apparently you know nothing about me, so go back and climb under the rock you came from under.
> 
> We've had people get murdered in SOMD.. one shot in the head while in his car in his driveway, and it didn't make waves like this, I'd bet that thread didn't even come close to the 1000 mark.
> 
> Set your priorities, it was a DOG!!  You want to ##### about something useful, don't ##### about a cop trying to do his job.. or the unfortunate demise of a DOG.. ##### to the county gov't about our growing crime rate.. about the killing of innocent PEOPLE in the county.
> 
> Before you bring up an unfortunate incident involving a friggin dog to our government's leaders, try to do some good for PEOPLE.




We have a**holes like you to fight for the "innocent" people.  How about a cop doing a job of finding the killers of these poeple rather than peeking in peoples windows and worrying about trying 4 doors rather than just 1.   Lets worry about getting killers off the street than the deadbeats, they should be last priority.  Putting a deadbeat in jail, number 1 wont get the money owed to the baby's momma, number 2 we dont need to fill the jails up with the baby's daddys when the cells could be put to good use with maybe the murders and rapist, and number 3 I would rather my tax dollars go to prosecuting the murderers and rapist than worrying about the child support issues.  My taxes already pay for the babys momma to be on state assistance.    You say he is just a dog, well dogs are important to alot of people and their families and if we have a cop that likes to take aggression out of defenseless animals that are tied to a porch, well then you know what they say about people with sick minds, it starts with animals and moves to people....


----------



## dmh

Merlin99 said:
			
		

> Bob,
> The problem is, I like most dogs, not so much people.




I agree with Merlin!   and people on this board may it even all the more difficult.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

dmh said:
			
		

> I agree with Merlin!   and people on this board may it even all the more difficult.


Can someone translate this??


----------



## dmh

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Can someone translate this??




I mean I agree, and people on this BOARD make it more difficult!  i.e., as in to like people more than dogs!   flippin retard


----------



## Agee

You gotta give the dogs' threads their due! No other topic on this forum gets more play! Especially, if it's Pit Bulls or an incident involving speculative dog abuse.

Maybe we've truly gone to the dogs...


----------



## Mikeinsmd

dmh said:
			
		

> I mean I agree, and people on this BOARD make it more difficult!  i.e., as in to like people more than dogs!   flippin retard


Glad you like people.  Merlin said he likes dogs better.  So you're still lost in space.  Now go take the next drive through order and try to get it right.    

BTW, it's July, not May.


----------



## itsbob

madMAX said:
			
		

> We have a**holes like you to fight for the "innocent" people.  How about a cop doing a job of finding the killers of these poeple rather than peeking in peoples windows and worrying about trying 4 doors rather than just 1.   Lets worry about getting killers off the street than the deadbeats, they should be last priority.  Putting a deadbeat in jail, number 1 wont get the money owed to the baby's momma, number 2 we dont need to fill the jails up with the baby's daddys when the cells could be put to good use with maybe the murders and rapist, and number 3 I would rather my tax dollars go to prosecuting the murderers and rapist than worrying about the child support issues.  My taxes already pay for the babys momma to be on state assistance.    You say he is just a dog, well dogs are important to alot of people and their families and if we have a cop that likes to take aggression out of defenseless animals that are tied to a porch, well then you know what they say about people with sick minds, it starts with animals and moves to people....



SO you agree that if their son did what he was supposed to do and PAY his child support our limited law enforcement resources would be more able to solve important crimes.. Instead they have to be tasked by the COURT (not the cops choice) to run down the deadbeats while the 7-11 gets robbed.. 

In turn, if their son WAS paying his child support the cop would have been elsewhere looking for a REAL criminal.. and never would have had the opportunity to shoot the dog.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me.. it only took what.. 1100 posts??


I don't 'alot' people either.. dogs maybe important to a lot(two words for future reference) of people.. but hopefully not more important than young children doing without because their dad is a deadbeat.


----------



## itsbob

Airgasm said:
			
		

> You gotta give the dogs' threads their due! No other topic on this forum gets more play! Especially, if it's Pit Bulls or an incident involving speculative dog abuse.
> 
> Maybe we've truly gone to the dogs...


And we thought the Horsey people were loons. They're probably glad the dognuts showed up, took the heat off of them.


----------



## dmh

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Glad you like people.  Merlin said he likes dogs better.  So you're still lost in space.  Now go take the next drive through order and try to get it right.
> 
> BTW, it's July, not May.




Obviously you are slightly nuts.  I said that people on this board make it difficult to like people more than dogs.  I agree with Merlin.  i like dogs better than people, and because of people like you, it is difficult to like people.  what word dont you understand, should i type slower for you?

and slightly confused, what do you mean about its july and not may?  thats basically a no sh*t sherlock, july 3 to be exact.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

dmh said:
			
		

> Obviously you are slightly nuts.  I said that people on this board make it difficult to like people more than dogs.  I agree with Merlin.  i like dogs better than people, and because of people like you, it is difficult to like people.  what word dont you understand, should i type slower for you?
> 
> and slightly confused, what do you mean about its july and not may?  thats basically a no sh*t sherlock, july 3 to be exact.


You get one too.....


----------



## donbarzini

madMAX said:
			
		

> No Bob, I beleive you are incorrect.  He is not wasting his time, I *actaully* think he is right.
> 
> You seem to preach *alot* about doing other things for other people, *what good deeds do you exactly do you do for others*?  I sure hope its not anything that has to do with math...........instead of preaching you should maybe take a tutor on math.




Yeah? Well, I hope your good deeds don't have to do with teaching youngsters English..........


----------



## camily

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Why would the FBI and a senator's office get involved investigating hate crimes if they believe our county is so "balanced and fair"?
> 
> You bunch of administration apologists are never going to get it:
> We don't believe the BS that has been brought forth as an internal investigation.
> 
> And no, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Long was bitten.  If you have it, bring it on.  Give us names, times, medical records, etc. The fox is guarding the hen house on this one.
> 
> I say keep stirring the pot until we get some answers and some factual information that CCSD administration is willing to release to the public.
> 
> Unless this happens, this will continue to fester animosity and downright distrust of this police force.


He went to the hospital. His wife called me to watch their kids but i wasn't home.


----------



## calamity jane

I also read in one of the news reports that he was treated and released at Civista.
 It does'nt make a difference whether he was badly bitten, scratched or not bitten at all, he had a right and a duty to protect himself against an attacking dog.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> I totally disagree.   The factual information is that a police officer shot and killed a dog that was tied to a chain.  The factual information is that the police officer that shot and killed the dog was no where to be seen when the son arrived home.   The factual information is that the sherriffs office is biased and obviously incompetent when it comes to investigating their own.  that sir is the factual information.



How is it you know the dog was chained when the officer shot him?  That information was provided by Mattia, and we know Mattia lied.  What does it matter where the officer was when the son arrived?  That makes no sense.  Are you trying to say the officer was hiding?


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> From what law school did your graduate?  You are defending this guy on hearsay from the CCSD.  We are defending Max by what we've seen.




What law school did you graduate from?  Hearsay?  No this is the results of the investigation.  You are making assumptions from information you received from a man who has been PROVEN to be a liar.  Joe Mattia.  Why don't you talk about the guy who provided this factual information being a liar?  He said the dog never bit anyone and we know the dog did?  Why does he lie?  What else did he lie about?  What evidence such as photographs did he stage to make the story favor his side?  

I know you will ignore the fact that he lied, but that is the ony fact that we can prove.  There is no indication that Long lied, other than the opinion of you geek formulites!


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Just as much as you don't get it, neither do I.  Officer Long was cleared by his own, how can anyone believe that his own would find him guilty?   That is just not possible in this county.
> 
> You are correct with the following -- Long did go to serve a warrant on a dead beat.      and that is all you are correct with
> 
> You state that Mr. Mattia was caught in a lie, he stated that Max was gentle and would never hurt anyone.  Well on a normal given day Max probably was gentle, we do not know the circumstance of that bite that the neighbor claims.    Had the Mattias came forward from the beginning and stated Max was a gentle dog, and has only bit once, people on this board would have crucified them just from that statement alone, so I don't see that they were wrong to withhold that truth.
> 
> You say that if there were any possibility Long committed some crime that Leonard Collins would have reviewed the case -- well know he wouldn't because it is up to the SD to say that the officer was in the wrong before Collins would have anything to do with it.  So nope sorry!
> 
> The two prior shootings, well why cant a police report be obtained regarding those shootings, Frank, please tell me that.



First point:  The Charles County Sheriff's Internal Affairs Department does find officers at fault in all types of things.  Officers from the Charles County Sheriff's Office have been fired for doing things wrong.

Second point:  You would justify Mattia lying.  This tends to reveal your credibility.  NONE!

Third point:  This shows how little you know about the criminal justice system.  The states attorney's office has their own independant investigator and can and do bring charges against people through indictments or criminal information process all the time.  

Fourth point:  Have you tried to get a copy of the police report where Long shot the other dogs?  Why do you choose to make up lies or believe the worst when the information was given to you by the newspapers about those shootings?

You are biased because of your emotions and not allowing yourself to look at this matter logically.

The true victim in this is Officer Long because of the defamatory attack by the LIAR Joe Mattia.  (and even you agreed he witheld information).


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> We have a**holes like you to fight for the "innocent" people.  How about a cop doing a job of finding the killers of these poeple rather than peeking in peoples windows and worrying about trying 4 doors rather than just 1.   Lets worry about getting killers off the street than the deadbeats, they should be last priority.  Putting a deadbeat in jail, number 1 wont get the money owed to the baby's momma, number 2 we dont need to fill the jails up with the baby's daddys when the cells could be put to good use with maybe the murders and rapist, and number 3 I would rather my tax dollars go to prosecuting the murderers and rapist than worrying about the child support issues.  My taxes already pay for the babys momma to be on state assistance.    You say he is just a dog, well dogs are important to alot of people and their families and if we have a cop that likes to take aggression out of defenseless animals that are tied to a porch, well then you know what they say about people with sick minds, it starts with animals and moves to people....




The cops did find the killer of the guy shot in the head in a parking lot.  Where is your praise for them?  None because what this is really about is your hatred for the police.  You are probably one of those deadbeats who don't pay for your children you brought into this world.


----------



## General Lee

tom88 said:
			
		

> None because what this is really about is your hatred for the police.



    Exactly, this board is full of them. They hate the police until they are in need of one. Then the police will help them in whatever situation they may be in and still find a way to b*tch that they did something wrong.


----------



## 88stringslouie

You call Mr. Mattia a liar.  If that PG cop was on his property, Max had every right to bite him.  Unless, Mr. Mattia invited him on his property.

If he was a welcome guest and Max bit him, why didn't he file a complaint with animal control, or take Mr. Mattia to court?

Everything that you state is hearsay unless it's taken to a court of law.
My complaint is with Long and the fact (reported by the sheriff's dept on television) that Long shot at least two other dogs.

I have not one beef with any police officer.  I have beefs with the administration and the lack of communicating all truths with the public. It's their job.  We are their bosses.


----------



## MiMiMi

After seeing the viciousness with which Mr. Mattia attacked Officer Long, I definitely understand why his neighbor would choose not to file a complaint against him. And like previous posts stated he had anger issues and used violence on several occasions to settle situations.  So I am sure the neighbor chose the lesser of two evils.  And as you stated it was okay for him to bite the neighbor if he wasn't asked to come on the property.  Well everyone keeps saying wonder if it was a kid.  Well wonder if a kid walked on the Mattias property univited and the dog bite them would that be okay?  Also the two dogs that keep being mentioned were not shot in a similar situation.  You can't hold against the officer that he was asked to destroy an animal by the owner.  That was part of his job plain and simple.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Why would the FBI and a senator's office get involved investigating hate crimes if they believe our county is so "balanced and fair"?
> 
> You bunch of administration apologists are never going to get it:
> We don't believe the BS that has been brought forth as an internal investigation.
> 
> And no, there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Long was bitten.  If you have it, bring it on.  Give us names, times, medical records, etc. The fox is guarding the hen house on this one.
> 
> I say keep stirring the pot until we get some answers and some factual information that CCSD administration is willing to release to the public.
> 
> Unless this happens, this will continue to fester animosity and downright distrust of this police force.


You sir, are a moron. You don't think the FBI has better things to do? Move to Russia you communist!


----------



## FrankBama1234

itsbob said:
			
		

> SO you agree that if their son did what he was supposed to do and PAY his child support our limited law enforcement resources would be more able to solve important crimes.. Instead they have to be tasked by the COURT (not the cops choice) to run down the deadbeats while the 7-11 gets robbed..
> 
> In turn, if their son WAS paying his child support the cop would have been elsewhere looking for a REAL criminal.. and never would have had the opportunity to shoot the dog.
> 
> Thank you for finally agreeing with me.. it only took what.. 1100 posts??
> 
> 
> I don't 'alot' people either.. dogs maybe important to a lot(two words for future reference) of people.. but hopefully not more important than young children doing without because their dad is a deadbeat.


Finally....


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> You sir, are a moron. You don't think the FBI has better things to do? Move to Russia you communist!



Well, you sir are an ignorant person of facts.
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=272026

Now YOU go back to the hills where the good old boys live.
And maybe learn how to read.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> You sir, are a moron. You don't think the FBI has better things to do? Move to Russia you communist!



And believe me, Mr. Hillbilly, the FBI supersedes any Sheriff's Dept. ANY day of the week.


----------



## 88stringslouie

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> After seeing the viciousness with which Mr. Mattia attacked Officer Long, I definitely understand why his neighbor would choose not to file a complaint against him. And like previous posts stated he had anger issues and used violence on several occasions to settle situations.  So I am sure the neighbor chose the lesser of two evils.  And as you stated it was okay for him to bite the neighbor if he wasn't asked to come on the property.  Well everyone keeps saying wonder if it was a kid.  Well wonder if a kid walked on the Mattias property univited and the dog bite them would that be okay?  Also the two dogs that keep being mentioned were not shot in a similar situation.  You can't hold against the officer that he was asked to destroy an animal by the owner.  That was part of his job plain and simple.



If a cop came out on my property and blew my dog away, I'd be madder than Hell!
Mr. Mattia has every right to be mad at Long and the administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass

This is trespassing.  If the cop neighbor did not have Mr. Mattia's permission to come onto his property, Max was legally allowed to protect Mr. Mattia's property, just as if you came onto my property (and I wouldn't allow you to), my dog would bite the living daylights out of you, and I would call 911 as a courtesy.


----------



## 88stringslouie

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> After seeing the viciousness with which Mr. Mattia attacked Officer Long, I definitely understand why his neighbor would choose not to file a complaint against him. And like previous posts stated he had anger issues and used violence on several occasions to settle situations.  So I am sure the neighbor chose the lesser of two evils.  And as you stated it was okay for him to bite the neighbor if he wasn't asked to come on the property.  Well everyone keeps saying wonder if it was a kid.  Well wonder if a kid walked on the Mattias property univited and the dog bite them would that be okay?  Also the two dogs that keep being mentioned were not shot in a similar situation.  You can't hold against the officer that he was asked to destroy an animal by the owner.  That was part of his job plain and simple.


If it was a young child, I'd shoot my dog if it attacked a neighbor's child.
If it was a young teenage hoodlum, I'd turn the dog loose on the hoodlum.

Wouldn't you?


----------



## MiMiMi

I personally would never own a dog that showed a tendancy to bite anyone.  I don't believe in having any animal that would bite a neighbor just because they stopped over unannounced.  And as for allowing your dog to bite a teenager or your threat to allow him to bite me if I came on your property, which you would never have to worry about, you only show your lack of ability to debate an issue without resorting to threats and that will serve to get your point across.  The only point and you can like it or not but as I stated before is that Officer Long broke no laws.  He was legally on the property and presented with a perceived threat and he stopped the threat.  Was it sad yes. Was it illegal no.  That sir is the bottom line.  Whether you like it or not.


----------



## tom88

*Why Mattia is a Liar!*



			
				88stringslouie said:
			
		

> You call Mr. Mattia a liar.  If that PG cop was on his property, Max had every right to bite him.  Unless, Mr. Mattia invited him on his property.



I call Mattia a liar because last week he told a Washington Post reporter that Max would never attack anyone.  We know that Max bit a neighbor who had leaned on Mattia's fence while speaking to Mattia two years ago!  

The neighbor didn't file a complaint with animal control or report the bite to the police.  He choose not to do this.  Mattia's wife came on this post and reported this to be true.  

Now being a defender of Mattia's, you can't have it both ways.  You can't believe Mattia's wife when she reports some information you feel supports your argument, then discount the information which reveals Mattia to be a liar!

A police officer who has an arrest warrant has a right to look around property to find someone.  Otherwise how would a police officer even knock on someone's door.  Isn't the front porch of a person their property?


----------



## MiMiMi

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> And believe me, Mr. Hillbilly, the FBI supersedes any Sheriff's Dept. ANY day of the week.


 And just FYI. It is Sheriff's Office not Sheriff's Department. And as for Senator Mikulski and her interest in the hate crimes that have occured in Charles County she is doing nothing more than using this hotly debated issue to get votes.  She has no real interst in making our county better.  And if she does decide to actually do something about the hate crimes, maybe she can start with the sheets Mr. Mattia has in his yard.  What is a better definition of a hate crime than that?


----------



## smcop

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> If a cop came out on my property and blew my dog away, I'd be madder than Hell!
> Mr. Mattia has every right to be mad at Long and the administration.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass
> 
> This is trespassing.  If the cop neighbor did not have Mr. Mattia's permission to come onto his property, Max was legally allowed to protect Mr. Mattia's property, just as if you came onto my property (and I wouldn't allow you to), my dog would bite the living daylights out of you, and I would call 911 as a courtesy.



 A police officer serving an arrest warrant in the State of Maryland is allowed to enter the property and use reasonable measures to apprehend the individual without a search warrant.  A police officer would need a search warrant to enter the home, unless they were able to identify the subject wanted inside the home, then no warrant would be neccessary.

I know you won't like this sir but this is a matter of law, and not opinion.

Your wikipedia gives  broad definition of trespass, however it does not explain Maryland law.  For instance, it is not a trespass to enter a persons property unless the property is surrounded by a fence or other obstruction or is marked no trespass.


----------



## protectmd

As I have seen in the past from postings on this board, news clippings, and just peoples opinions, its clear to me that there needs to be a sheriffs office civilian oversight committee made up of people of all parts of the county with the according demographics and backgrounds. You can call it tying the hands of police or whatever you want to, but its clear. It keeps the long arm of the law from getting chopped off and from getting outta control, and its apparent that the focus of the department is to clearly go after non violent offenders when you have people getting robbed and shot in waldorf. We (The citizens of charles county, Md.) want quality, not quantity arrests.We want VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF THE STREETS not kids with skateboards and bicycles. Yeah write the kid a ticket for having seeds and stems in his ashtray, but don't fill the jail with easy marks... feel free to go into some of the "bad places" in charles county and nab some of them too... Your not a hero if you write tickets to soccer moms all day, and turn around and run from the local streetgang. With a committee, commission or whatever, it would prevent future incidents such as this one from being swept under rugs, and hold those responsible accountable.... whether it was the responsibility to conduct a in depth unbiased investigation according to SOP's.... which does include TAKING PICTURES of the BITE, or.... interviewing ALL WITNESSES like, neighbors, just anybody having to do with that residence, not allowing the washington post to do your investigative work for you, or wait for 7 on your side to show up and give us the real scoop on what happened. 

Im not against Officer Long, but I don't understand how an agency can conduct an investigation on its own people and say its a fair unbiased report? 
How is it that they are allowed to operate with complete disregard or respect for life whether its a dogs or a humans? (They could have had the scene cleaned up before they vacated it, instead of allowing St. Mary's Today to get all the gory images....) They don't allow reporters to run through crime scenes in other jurisdictions, so why allow it here? 
An apology would be nice. Maybe a new dog. 
Intel, intel intel. Guy hasn't lived there in years. Did they try calling the house? Asking the neighbors? Why serve a warrant during the day when most normal people are at work and you know theres going to be nobody home? For example, im not a cop but.... if I was serving a warrant to a crackhead violent drug dealer I would probably hit him up at 5 am  in the morning. Vs's..... if im serving a warrant to your average soccer dad works 9-5 job, I should probably come in the evening hours... sometime after 3pm, and sometime before 10 pm. common sense. 
One more thing. SMECO man comes once a month and checks meters. UPS/Fedex man drop off packages, you name it... im sure people have stopped by in the past at that residence with nobody home and there were no problems. So why is it that this dog decided to snap and maul a cop?


----------



## MiMiMi

protectmd said:
			
		

> As I have seen in the past from postings on this board, news clippings, and just peoples opinions, its clear to me that there needs to be a sheriffs office civilian oversight committee made up of people of all parts of the county with the according demographics and backgrounds. You can call it tying the hands of police or whatever you want to, but its clear. It keeps the long arm of the law from getting chopped off and from getting outta control, and its apparent that the focus of the department is to clearly go after non violent offenders when you have people getting robbed and shot in waldorf. We (The citizens of charles county, Md.) want quality, not quantity arrests.We want VIOLENT OFFENDERS OFF THE STREETS not kids with skateboards and bicycles. Yeah write the kid a ticket for having seeds and stems in his ashtray, but don't fill the jail with easy marks... feel free to go into some of the "bad places" in charles county and nab some of them too... Your not a hero if you write tickets to soccer moms all day, and turn around and run from the local streetgang. With a committee, commission or whatever, it would prevent future incidents such as this one from being swept under rugs, and hold those responsible accountable.... whether it was the responsibility to conduct a in depth unbiased investigation according to SOP's.... which does include TAKING PICTURES of the BITE, or.... interviewing ALL WITNESSES like, neighbors, just anybody having to do with that residence, not allowing the washington post to do your investigative work for you, or wait for 7 on your side to show up and give us the real scoop on what happened.
> 
> Im not against Officer Long, but I don't understand how an agency can conduct an investigation on its own people and say its a fair unbiased report?
> How is it that they are allowed to operate with complete disregard or respect for life whether its a dogs or a humans? (They could have had the scene cleaned up before they vacated it, instead of allowing St. Mary's Today to get all the gory images....) They don't allow reporters to run through crime scenes in other jurisdictions, so why allow it here?
> An apology would be nice. Maybe a new dog.
> Intel, intel intel. Guy hasn't lived there in years. Did they try calling the house? Asking the neighbors? Why serve a warrant during the day when most normal people are at work and you know theres going to be nobody home? For example, im not a cop but.... if I was serving a warrant to a crackhead violent drug dealer I would probably hit him up at 5 am  in the morning. Vs's..... if im serving a warrant to your average soccer dad works 9-5 job, I should probably come in the evening hours... sometime after 3pm, and sometime before 10 pm. common sense.
> One more thing. SMECO man comes once a month and checks meters. UPS/Fedex man drop off packages, you name it... im sure people have stopped by in the past at that residence with nobody home and there were no problems. So why is it that this dog decided to snap and maul a cop?


 I do agree that our police resources need to be spent stopping the violent crimes in our county.  However, I for one have to say that since Sheriff Coffey has been in office I have seen more officers around patrolling then ever.  And from the crime reports it seems that quite a few criminals are being caught and prosecuted.  And I am sure you remember last year when the officers were trying to protect innocent citizens from a gun weilding drugged out assailant in Phoenix Run and what happened?  The officer who returned fire was almost destroyed by the people he was trying to protect.  The Sheriff's Office allowed all of the evidence to be scruntinized by the public and that wasn't good enough.  They met with the NAACP reps in the county and held a meeting and that wasn't good enough.  What would be enough?  It is like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Plus you have to consider the size of the county and how much the population has grown.  The Sheriff's Office has a limited number of resources in the way of officers and equipment.  Every time they build another neighborhood that is one more place to patrol.  And I don't know what the county is doing with the impact fees the builders pay, but they aren't going to public safety.  You also have to consider that the Sheriff's Office gets an unbelievable amount of calls for service that don't require the services of a deputy officer.  Do you realize that people will call in and request service for a theft that actually turns out to be a ten cent yard ornament?  Then the officer has to do a report and follow up on the case then do final paperwork to close it out.  So if someone can educate the public on what really justifies a call to the police maybe that will lighten the load and they will hav more time to track down the real criminals who pose a threat to our county.  

I also think you should know that officers in the county are very often disciplined either by losing their job or making restitution.  During the course of the last few years several deputies have "resigned".  This was because they were breaking the law and chose to leave rather than fight a losing battle and cost the taxpayers more money.  

As for the St. Mary's today.  I don't think of them as a real newspaper.  And I don't believe they have any real integrity about journalism.  And no one knows who called them.

Finally, I have to say that if Mr. Mattias son has not lived there in years, why would he give the court that address?  And the officer probably went during the day since he wasn't paying child support and therefore he may have thought he didn't work.  And as for the UPS/FEDEX guys not getting bit.  I seriously doubt they made any attempt to go around the house since I have never had one go out of their way to deliver a package.  They ring the bell and go.


----------



## protectmd

10 cent yard ornament? Why waste the time honestly? I thought that you could get charged with wasting the time of the police for silly stuff like that. Just like people call 911 for stubbed toe's, headaches and other BS. If you receieve a whole bunch of false crap every year, do something about it. Start fining these fools. I mean I completely understand from that aspect, however, if your a patrol officer and filling out paperwork on a 10 cent yard ornament that possibly blew away in the wind, so you can avoid the mean streets of carrington... shame on ya. Or if your shaking down skateboarders so you can avoid the warzone formerly known as the meadows in laplata, yeah.... your a joke and you just keep on hiding out in the nice parts of town.

As far as meeting with NAACP leaders, what would they like? Get them in on it. Honestly. Im dying to hear their input, since they have idea's on how to make things safer... I don't expect them to agree with everything but it would be nice to meet each and every community organization halfway on some of their requests... As long as they are reasonable. But theres gotta be expectations for that organization to meet as well... Rex should sit down with them and say this is what I need from you... The Reverend Al and his buddies aren't experts in law enforcement, but they do have somewhat decent rapport with the community they serve.

You'll never win the streets without the people. You have got to get them behind you. Nobody supports shady or corrupt organizations, or racist groups or even the good ole boys system anymore. Nobody likes scandal, or sinister smiley glad hand politicians with hidden agenda's.... who are only in it for themselves. So... Point being... 

What is being done to handle this sort of thing in the future? 

You mention how the address was listed to that residence. Ok, I certainly don't know who's listed to my residence? I don't have access to that wonderful police computer that tells all sorts of top secret hidden info on a person or a license plate or address. For all I know, they have a convicted killer living at my address and I don't even know it. Its not hard to go to the MVA and change your residence, or not do so... That computer is about as accurate as a report of a dog armed with a gun.


----------



## JohnnyReb

Why do people think Long would lie about the situation?  Just so he could shoot a dog and get away with it?  Please you people make me sick.  I know Officer Long and I work for the CCSO and I can't believe the ignorance shown in this thread.  You people make it seem like officers ride around and look for reasons to use their firearms. 

But hey, I can't complain, if it were not for ignorant/stupid people I would not have a job.


----------



## MiMiMi

protectmd said:
			
		

> 10 cent yard ornament? Why waste the time honestly? I thought that you could get charged with wasting the time of the police for silly stuff like that. Just like people call 911 for stubbed toe's, headaches and other BS. If you receieve a whole bunch of false crap every year, do something about it. Start fining these fools. I mean I completely understand from that aspect, however, if your a patrol officer and filling out paperwork on a 10 cent yard ornament that possibly blew away in the wind, so you can avoid the mean streets of carrington... shame on ya. Or if your shaking down skateboarders so you can avoid the warzone formerly known as the meadows in laplata, yeah.... your a joke and you just keep on hiding out in the nice parts of town.
> 
> As far as meeting with NAACP leaders, what would they like? Get them in on it. Honestly. Im dying to hear their input, since they have idea's on how to make things safer... I don't expect them to agree with everything but it would be nice to meet each and every community organization halfway on some of their requests... As long as they are reasonable. But theres gotta be expectations for that organization to meet as well... Rex should sit down with them and say this is what I need from you... The Reverend Al and his buddies aren't experts in law enforcement, but they do have somewhat decent rapport with the community they serve.
> 
> You'll never win the streets without the people. You have got to get them behind you. Nobody supports shady or corrupt organizations, or racist groups or even the good ole boys system anymore. Nobody likes scandal, or sinister smiley glad hand politicians with hidden agenda's.... who are only in it for themselves. So... Point being...
> 
> What is being done to handle this sort of thing in the future?
> 
> You mention how the address was listed to that residence. Ok, I certainly don't know who's listed to my residence? I don't have access to that wonderful police computer that tells all sorts of top secret hidden info on a person or a license plate or address. For all I know, they have a convicted killer living at my address and I don't even know it. Its not hard to go to the MVA and change your residence, or not do so... That computer is about as accurate as a report of a dog armed with a gun.


 I agree with you that something should be done about these unnecessary calls.  The problem is everyone thinks there situation is the most important thing in the world.  Even unfortunately if it is just wasting time.  I also think if we showed the officers that we as a community would stand by them they would be more apt to be by our side in our time of need.  Imagine being an officer called to use force and thinking about how previous officers who, whether you agree or not, were acting according to the law were treated.  They and their families were threatened and ridiculed.  I know that all officers are not doing the best they can.  They are people and that is how people are.  But I feel that for the most part the officers in the county are making a tremendous effort to bring crime under control.  And Sheriff Coffey is doing his part to make sure that more officers are on our streets day in and day out.  He has also welcomed the public into the headquarters building and is constantly meeting with various citizens groups.  And no he isn't perfect either.  But he is doing his best to make the county a better place to live.  He truly cares about our county and the people in it.  I am sure he would welcome setting up a citizens advisory committee.  

Also if you ever want to look up an address you don't need confidential computers you can just go to "Zabasearch.com"  it is public.  You would be amazed what you could find out.  And that is without special rights to info.

And while I agree with you that the good ole boy network did exist, I don't think it is anywhere near as prevelent within the county and that includes the county government and commissioners as well.  

I do think that anyone interested in a citizens committee should conact the Sheriff's Office.  You may be surprised at what you find out.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> And believe me, Mr. Hillbilly, the FBI supersedes any Sheriff's Dept. ANY day of the week.


Funny how the FBI hasn't come out in defense of Max or Mattia....


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Well, you sir are an ignorant person of facts.
> http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=272026
> 
> Now YOU go back to the hills where the good old boys live.
> And maybe learn how to read.


Do you think the Sheriff's Dept. is responsible for the hate crimes? Nobody wanted those cases sloved more than the men and women of the Sheriff's Office. You would have people believe the officers were out spray painting hate graffiti. The only person in this case that has proven to be a liar is Mattia. He lied about that damn dog not biting anyone, and it was proven to be false. His own wife confirmed the dog bit the neighbor. Find a new hobby. The next time someone steals your hubcaps call the FBI, they have nothing better to do with all the terrorism and interstate crimes. They will probably drop what they are doing just for you....


----------



## 88stringslouie

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> Why do people think Long would lie about the situation?  Just so he could shoot a dog and get away with it?  Please you people make me sick.  I know Officer Long and I work for the CCSO and I can't believe the ignorance shown in this thread.  You people make it seem like officers ride around and look for reasons to use their firearms.
> 
> But hey, I can't complain, if it were not for ignorant/stupid people I would not have a job.



Three reasons that I can think of:
1)  Long fears for his job 
2)  Coffey is aggressive and would fire him
3)  Coffey would look bad.  That would be even worse.  He would fire everybody!

Any other dumb questions?
PS...Ask Officer Long why he doesn't have the balls to come forward, present the medical records and any other evidence that would allow this to be put to rest.  He's looking pretty damned foolish in the public eye, saying that an aggressive dog "laid in wake" around the back as he pulled up to the front of the house.  It sounds almost like a "Mother Goose" tail to me. Oh, I guess the "internal investigation" might look "fixed" though.  Please see rules 1, 2, and 3.  And of course  you apologists wouldn't like St. Mary's Today because they don't kiss the A$$ of the CCSD (oops I mean't CCSO)


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Do you think the Sheriff's Dept. is responsible for the hate crimes? Nobody wanted those cases sloved more than the men and women of the Sheriff's Office. You would have people believe the officers were out spray painting hate graffiti. The only person in this case that has proven to be a liar is Mattia. He lied about that damn dog not biting anyone, and it was proven to be false. His own wife confirmed the dog bit the neighbor. Find a new hobby. The next time someone steals your hubcaps call the FBI, they have nothing better to do with all the terrorism and interstate crimes. They will probably drop what they are doing just for you....



Oh really?  Maybe you should talk to some people that actually grew up around "these parts" in the '70's.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## MiMiMi

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Oh really?  Maybe you should talk to some people that actually grew up around "these parts" in the '70's.
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm


 I grew up around Waldorf in the 70's what is your point?  Also, alot of people don't like the St. Mary's today because it is a substandard news publication.  They have published numerous articles without ever substantiating the facts.  They are trying to perpetuate an agenda of their own. And as for Officer Long he was never given the chance to come forward.  He was tried and convicted before the facts were even presented.  You fail to realize that it isn't anyones job to prove to you whether the law was broken or not.  The evidence is presented to the adminstrators and the State's Attorney.  Apparently the evidence was convincing.  Or do you believe that Len Collins is a good ole boy too.


----------



## 88stringslouie

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I grew up around Waldorf in the 70's what is your point?  Also, alot of people don't like the St. Mary's today because it is a substandard news publication.  They have published numerous articles without ever substantiating the facts.  They are trying to perpetuate an agenda of their own. And as for Officer Long he was never given the chance to come forward.  He was tried and convicted before the facts were even presented.  You fail to realize that it isn't anyones job to prove to you whether the law was broken or not.  The evidence is presented to the adminstrators and the State's Attorney.  Apparently the evidence was convincing.  Or do you believe that Len Collins is a good ole boy too.



I didn't say Waldorf.  You may want to consider La Plata.


----------



## protectmd

I don't think that a citizens independent oversight committee is the answer, but its definately coming. Just because with population demographics change you will also have a change in how public matters are influenced and dealt with. Just like PG county. Perhaps you haven't been up to the mall lately or driven around Sunny suburban Waldorf. Alls we need now is the metro stop. 

 I don't think the CCSO is responsible for the crime rate in this county, nor do I think that they can bring it under control either. Their good ole boy system is no match for the gangster seasoned criminals of the north that will shortly overwhelm this county with calls and crimes... im suprised we didn't have a "Crime emergency" this summer in waldorf. 

I don't think that the CCSO has ever had anything to do with hate crimes in the county, and I don't understand how anything having to do with the Max story has to do with a hate crime. 

I do understand they are trying, and I understand that Officer Long was found to be innocent of any charges that may have been up against him. I also understand that it was by coincidence that he's had to use his firearm against vicious animals in the past. However, the reason he was probably convicted judge jury and executioner here on this forum is because of the PIO situation that comes out of Charles County SO. If 7 on your side came out with a photo saying Look what the lovely dog Max did to Officer Longs Leg, and it was so graphic that they had to blot out images, that would be understandable. But instead of having a decent media release, and taking control over what gets released to the public, it was allowed to be a free for all in the hands of the media who twisted it out to be this horrifying story of what happened to the dog Max. We still haven't seen the pictures.

Hopefully this is a lesson to all agencies of what the media will do with statements, and how limiting info or putting out one side of the story will create investigations by reporters out the wahzoo.... only to result in a story that makes their ratings go up but might not be the truth.


----------



## 88stringslouie

protectmd said:
			
		

> I don't think that a citizens independent oversight committee is the answer, but its definately coming. Just because with population demographics change you will also have a change in how public matters are influenced and dealt with. Just like PG county. Perhaps you haven't been up to the mall lately or driven around Sunny suburban Waldorf. Alls we need now is the metro stop.
> 
> I don't think the CCSO is responsible for the crime rate in this county, nor do I think that they can bring it under control either. Their good ole boy system is no match for the gangster seasoned criminals of the north that will shortly overwhelm this county with calls and crimes... im suprised we didn't have a "Crime emergency" this summer in waldorf.
> 
> I don't think that the CCSO has ever had anything to do with hate crimes in the county, and I don't understand how anything having to do with the Max story has to do with a hate crime.
> 
> I do understand they are trying, and I understand that Officer Long was found to be innocent of any charges that may have been up against him. I also understand that it was by coincidence that he's had to use his firearm against vicious animals in the past. However, the reason he was probably convicted judge jury and executioner here on this forum is because of the PIO situation that comes out of Charles County SO. If 7 on your side came out with a photo saying Look what the lovely dog Max did to Officer Longs Leg, and it was so graphic that they had to blot out images, that would be understandable. But instead of having a decent media release, and taking control over what gets released to the public, it was allowed to be a free for all in the hands of the media who twisted it out to be this horrifying story of what happened to the dog Max. We still haven't seen the pictures.
> 
> Hopefully this is a lesson to all agencies of what the media will do with statements, and how limiting info or putting out one side of the story will create investigations by reporters out the wahzoo.... only to result in a story that makes their ratings go up but might not be the truth.



I sincerely think that the public's reaction was based quite a bit on the horrid images taken at the Mattia's house.
I still think that they should take Long to court and have the public in on the jury to ask why he's killed three dogs.


----------



## MiMiMi

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I didn't say Waldorf.  You may want to consider La Plata.


 When I said around Waldorf, I actually lived 13 years in Waldorf, 8 years in La Plata, and 20 years in Charlotte Hall.


----------



## donbarzini

Charles County officer ... 07-05-2007 10:21 AM Grammar Nazi 


Is *THAT* the best you can do?!?


----------



## MiMiMi

*Comments*

If you want to send the negative comments, I don't care.  Red is my favorite color.  But please have the b*lls to sign it.


----------



## itsbob

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I sincerely think that the public's reaction was based quite a bit on the horrid images taken at the Mattia's house.
> I still think that they should take Long to court and have the public in on the jury to ask why he's killed three dogs.


Which Court?  Wimbledon?  Becasue other then playing a game of tennis there are no grounds to take him to a criminal court.. 

NOW if they REALLY think they have a case, they can put their money where their mouths are and take him to civil court.. or sue the sheriff's office.  I haven't heard word of them doing either, so they must not be TOO mad..


----------



## MiMiMi

itsbob said:
			
		

> Which Court?  Wimbledon?  Becasue other then playing a game of tennis there are no grounds to take him to a criminal court..
> 
> NOW if they REALLY think they have a case, they can put their money where their mouths are and take him to civil court.. or sue the sheriff's office.  I haven't heard word of them doing either, so they must not be TOO mad..


 They will never pursue a court case against Officer Long or CCSO.  Because once an independent jury or judge finds that neither Officer Long nor the Sheriff's Office broke any laws they would have to accept it as fact.  Then they would have to stop with the conspiracy theory.


----------



## Woodyspda

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> oh, and to the individual leaving the "tard" karma..... show your face you immature mama's boy.


how do you know its a mommas boy


I don't.... but from your statement the immature comment isn't being refuted.


----------



## JohnnyReb

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Three reasons that I can think of:
> 1)  Long fears for his job
> 2)  Coffey is aggressive and would fire him
> 3)  Coffey would look bad.  That would be even worse.  He would fire everybody!
> 
> Any other dumb questions?
> PS...Ask Officer Long why he doesn't have the balls to come forward, present the medical records and any other evidence that would allow this to be put to rest.  He's looking pretty damned foolish in the public eye, saying that an aggressive dog "laid in wake" around the back as he pulled up to the front of the house.  It sounds almost like a "Mother Goose" tail to me. Oh, I guess the "internal investigation" might look "fixed" though.  Please see rules 1, 2, and 3.  And of course  you apologists wouldn't like St. Mary's Today because they don't kiss the A$$ of the CCSD (oops I mean't CCSO)





Why should he bring up his medical records? He dosen't have to prove anything to you, he does not answer to you.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Oh really?  Maybe you should talk to some people that actually grew up around "these parts" in the '70's.
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm


Again...you sir are a moron. Just for the record, the FBI nor the ATF solved the case of the mass arsons in Hunter's Brooke. It was an Auto Theft Detective with the CCSO. So don't think for one minute they are the end all. It's the hard working "beat and local cops" that get things done. So stick that in your flip flop and smoke it you hippie.


----------



## 88stringslouie

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> Why should he bring up his medical records? He dosen't have to prove anything to you, he does not answer to you.



Sure he does.  We are the taxpayers, and they answer to the taxpayers.
Without our money, they are unemployed.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> Again...you sir are a moron. Just for the record, the FBI nor the ATF solved the case of the mass arsons in Hunter's Brooke. It was an Auto Theft Detective with the CCSO. So don't think for one minute they are the end all. It's the hard working "beat and local cops" that get things done. So stick that in your flip flop and smoke it you hippie.



I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.


----------



## 88stringslouie

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> Why should he bring up his medical records? He dosen't have to prove anything to you, he does not answer to you.



My point exactly.  We would never find out the truth unless we put these guys under oath with a decent attorney.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.



This shows you know nothing about law enforcement.  The FBI investigate different crimes than the Local Police.  While a local police detective may have 1000 crimes in a five year period assigned to him or her, an FBI agent would not investigate 1000 crimes in a twenty year carreer.  The FBI doesn't supercede anyone.  The FBI despite television, cannot come into a local jurisdiction and take over an investigation.  They may work a joint investigation, however they would have seperate charges than the local police.

Again your ignorance shows through.


----------



## tom88

protectmd said:
			
		

> Intel, intel intel. Guy hasn't lived there in years. Did they try calling the house? Asking the neighbors? Why serve a warrant during the day when most normal people are at work and you know theres going to be nobody home? For example, im not a cop but.... if I was serving a warrant to a crackhead violent drug dealer I would probably hit him up at 5 am  in the morning. Vs's..... if im serving a warrant to your average soccer dad works 9-5 job, I should probably come in the evening hours... sometime after 3pm, and sometime before 10 pm. common sense.
> One more thing. SMECO man comes once a month and checks meters. UPS/Fedex man drop off packages, you name it... im sure people have stopped by in the past at that residence with nobody home and there were no problems. So why is it that this dog decided to snap and maul a cop?



How do you know the guy didn't live there in years.  How do you know there hasn't been another problem with the dog biting a meter man or a ups man?  We know the dog bit a neighbor and Joe Mattia lied about it.  Where are you getting your information?


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I still think that they should take Long to court and have the public in on the jury to ask why he's killed three dogs.





He won't take him to court because he knows he will loose.  Joe Mattia is a liar.  Why do you defend him?


----------



## Woodyspda

Originally Posted by 88stringslouie
I still think that they should take Long to court and have the public in on the jury to ask why he's killed three dogs.





			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> He won't take him to court because he knows he will loose.  Joe Mattia is a liar.  Why do you defend him?




Tom, why do you continue to insist on twisting what people are saying?? I don't agree with everything being said. (both sides of the proverbial fence) But.....
No where in that statement did he defend anyone. He only stated that they should take Long to civil court (which they may or may not have the right to do, I'm not a lawyer but I'll be sure to ask one of the 3 that I know soon) 

You also insist that EVERYTHING out of the family's mouth has to be a lie... so you are so saintly to have never fibbed or mistakenly made a false statement that you had to retract (which in this case it is a matter of subjective opinion whether the dog's owner should or should not retract)

Those in glass houses......


----------



## JohnnyReb

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.




Sorry but that is totally incorrect.  The CCSO is the PRIMARY law enforcement agency of Charles County.  The FBI only has jurisdiction in crimes involving interstate commerce (with few exceptions).


----------



## JohnnyReb

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Sure he does.  We are the taxpayers, and they answer to the taxpayers.
> Without our money, they are unemployed.




No, a Deputy Sheriff answers to the Sheriff which ultimately answers to the voters.  You must pay taxes, you don't have a choice in that, or how your taxes are used.  The only decision making you have in regards to taxes, is voting in politicians that share your views on taxation and will change things to how you want them.  Unless you are that politician of course...

Now if you want to say you pay my salary, may I please ask you for a raise?


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.
> 
> [/QUOTE
> Wrong!!! Again. The FBI only comes into investigate if (A)invited by the local juristiction (B)For federal crimes like bank robbery (C) if a civil rights violation occurred. Again, get your facts straight before you spew off with the mouth...


----------



## tom88

Woodyspda said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by 88stringslouie
> I still think that they should take Long to court and have the public in on the jury to ask why he's killed three dogs.
> 
> Tom, why do you continue to insist on twisting what people are saying?? I don't agree with everything being said. (both sides of the proverbial fence) But.....
> No where in that statement did he defend anyone. He only stated that they should take Long to civil court (which they may or may not have the right to do, I'm not a lawyer but I'll be sure to ask one of the 3 that I know soon)
> 
> You also insist that EVERYTHING out of the family's mouth has to be a lie... so you are so saintly to have never fibbed or mistakenly made a false statement that you had to retract (which in this case it is a matter of subjective opinion whether the dog's owner should or should not retract)
> 
> Those in glass houses......



This isn't a fib or a mistaken false statement.  This is a guy who's son was a deadbeat, who the officer was tasked at finding.  The son provided the wrong address to the court system.  Then the officer stated he was defending himself when he had to kill the aggressive dog.  Then Mattia is a person who intentionally lies, then hangs a huge banner accusing the officer of committing a crime, and making the officer out to be a bad person.

I am not twisting anything.  Louie has defended Mattia in previous threads.  You still can't give an example of one thing I twisted.  This is just more of your side's way of trying to make people believe you because you write something down.


----------



## 88stringslouie

FrankBama1234 said:
			
		

> 88stringslouie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.
> 
> [/QUOTE
> Wrong!!! Again. The FBI only comes into investigate if (A)invited by the local juristiction (B)For federal crimes like bank robbery (C) if a civil rights violation occurred. Again, get your facts straight before you spew off with the mouth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights violations did occur, and that's why Mikulski asked the FBI to come in to investigate.  She did not wait until the high and almight CCSO to "invite them in".
> 
> With the attitude of "we can't do any wrong", there will be a turnover in administration every 4 years until further notice.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kain99

You people are seriously crazy!    Please discover sex and move on!


----------



## Agee

Kain99 said:
			
		

> You people are seriously crazy! Please discover sex and move on!


 
Indeed!  

Cheese & Over-done Rice...


----------



## 88stringslouie

*You're argument is full of holes.*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> This isn't a fib or a mistaken false statement.  This is a guy who's son was a deadbeat, who the officer was tasked at finding.  The son provided the wrong address to the court system.  Then the officer stated he was defending himself when he had to kill the aggressive dog.  Then Mattia is a person who intentionally lies, then hangs a huge banner accusing the officer of committing a crime, and making the officer out to be a bad person.
> 
> I am not twisting anything.  Louie has defended Mattia in previous threads.  You still can't give an example of one thing I twisted.  This is just more of your side's way of trying to make people believe you because you write something down.



Mr. Mattia can lie all he wants.  That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Long murdering Max.  My insistence is to have Long taken to court for destroying property, with the burden of proof on the Mattia's.  Long shot and killed at least three dogs that we know of.  Take him to court and have the medical records subpoenaed and any forensic evidence from the seen.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Mr. Mattia can lie all he wants.  That has absolutely NOTHING to do with Long murdering Max.  My insistence is to have Long taken to court for destroying property, with the burden of proof on the Mattia's.  Long shot and killed at least three dogs that we know of.  Take him to court and have the medical records subpoenaed and any forensic evidence from the seen.



You are assuming the cop did something wrong because of he information we received from Mattia saying the dog was friendly and wouldn't attack anyone.  Now we find out Mattia lied about this.  If he is able to lie about that..what else did he do.  Did he stage some of the scene for photographs?

Now we know what happened with the other dogs, the owner was mauled and requested they be shot.  Why do you bring the other dogs up like there is something wrong with that?

Mattia isn't going to court.  He is a liar and won't waste his money.  He just wants to try and embarass this poor officer who has been cleared and is using you people to do it!

If I were the cop, I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of seeing my medical records because it is none of your business.

I told you and all your other little friends a long time ago, this officer would be cleared and nothing would happen.  I am correct!


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> You are assuming the cop did something wrong because of he information we received from Mattia saying the dog was friendly and wouldn't attack anyone.  Now we find out Mattia lied about this.  If he is able to lie about that..what else did he do.  Did he stage some of the scene for photographs?
> 
> Now we know what happened with the other dogs, the owner was mauled and requested they be shot.  Why do you bring the other dogs up like there is something wrong with that?
> 
> Mattia isn't going to court.  He is a liar and won't waste his money.  He just wants to try and embarass this poor officer who has been cleared and is using you people to do it!
> 
> If I were the cop, I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of seeing my medical records because it is none of your business.
> 
> I told you and all your other little friends a long time ago, this officer would be cleared and nothing would happen.  I am correct!



What Mr. Mattia is isn't any of our business.  He isn't the guy that murdered Max.  
You are correct.  It's none of my business to see Long's medical records.  It will be the court's. And if the guy is dragged into a civil court, I will be there to see what is inside his medical records regarding the attack of the wild beast.

Mr. Coffey and Mr. Long are the ones that look bad with the occurrence of this event.  Mr. Coffey will have this baggage once the election rolls around.  
Good luck to him.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> What Mr. Mattia is isn't any of our business.  He isn't the guy that murdered Max.
> You are correct.  It's none of my business to see Long's medical records.  It will be the court's. And if the guy is dragged into a civil court, I will be there to see what is inside his medical records regarding the attack of the wild beast.
> 
> Mr. Coffey and Mr. Long are the ones that look bad with the occurrence of this event.  Mr. Coffey will have this baggage once the election rolls around.
> Good luck to him.



  He didn't murder max.  He killed max in self defense.  Vote Rex Coffee out of office.  I voted for Fred Davis.  Haha.  

  How come your not answering my question?  Why do you keep bringing up the other dogs when the newspaper reported what occurred with them.  

  Don't you understand.  This is over.  Long wins, Mattia looses.  Blame the son.  And as a bonus, you are going to vote against the guy I don't like!    

  You won't be in court because Mattia is a liar and can't bring Long to court.  Don't you think if there were any sort of case her Mattia would have brought it?  Don't you think if there were any chance the cop did something wrong one of the competent tort attorneys in Southern Maryland would have been banging on Mattia's door?  

  Come on.  I took you for a person who was thinking with your emotions rather than your logic, but I didn't think you were stupid!


----------



## General Lee

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Sure he does.  We are the taxpayers, and they answer to the taxpayers.
> Without our money, they are unemployed.



     Goodness Gracious..........


----------



## huntr1

Why OH WHY can't you all let this thread die already?  After reading a small percentage of the posts in this thread, about 8 pages, I now support Long JUST because I wish this thread would die already.  Kill a person and get a 3 day thread, kill a dog and get an immortal thread...


----------



## itsbob

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I guess I struck a nerve.  It doesn't matter who solved the case.  My point is, the FBI supersedes Chucky County and any other local police force.


Not always.. A crime has to meet certain criteria for the FBI to even get involved let alone 'supersede" the local and state cops. I really don't think a dead dog would be worthy of their time or resources.


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> FrankBama1234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights violations did occur, and that's why Mikulski asked the FBI to come in to investigate.  She did not wait until the high and almight CCSO to "invite them in".
> 
> With the attitude of "we can't do any wrong", there will be a turnover in administration every 4 years until further notice.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they did. Did you not read my earlier post? The FBI did not crack that case, it was an auto-theft detective from the CCSO. The FBI will NOT investigate why a cop shot a dog. It already has been investigated. The same people who chastise the Sheriff's Office for not finding guilt in Long, would be the same people praising them if it went the way they wanted it. Face the facts, it's over....score, Long 1, Mattias 0.
Click to expand...


----------



## FrankBama1234

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> What Mr. Mattia is isn't any of our business.  He isn't the guy that murdered Max.
> You are correct.  It's none of my business to see Long's medical records.  It will be the court's. And if the guy is dragged into a civil court, I will be there to see what is inside his medical records regarding the attack of the wild beast.
> 
> Mr. Coffey and Mr. Long are the ones that look bad with the occurrence of this event.  Mr. Coffey will have this baggage once the election rolls around.
> Good luck to him.


I got news for you, even if this goes to court, no one will ever see those medical records unless Long allows them in. FYI


----------



## otter

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> If this does go to court and Officer Long is found not guilty of any wrongdoing will you then believe the facts or will you think the judge and jury is in on it too?  And in case you missed my previous post Senator Mikulski is doing nothing but trying to get votes.  She woke up one day with nothing to do and read about the publicity that was being generated by the "hate crimes" and decided to jump on the bandwagon.  She has no more interest in Charles County than the man on the moon.  I haven't seen anything that Senator Mikulski has done other than run her mouth.  If you are waiting for her to handle the problems in Charles County you have a long wait.




 I wish you folks would quit with the court crap..No one was there except the dog and the cop..No way a judge or jury is gonna convict Long of a damn thing. Arguing the court angle is as much of a red herring as arguing about the other 2 dogs. 

If a cop has a warrant for someone, fine..but doing damage or killing an animal on property thats owned by someone else, regardless of whether they are kin or not, is piss poor police work. This warrant was not for an 'armed and dangerous felon', common sense should have dictated the actions of the cop. Being 'justified or within the rules' in killing the dog does not make it right when just a little brainpower could have prevented all of this.


----------



## MMDad

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Check out this link:
> 
> http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-82586&als[theme]=Privacy%20and%20Human%20Rights&headline=PHR2004#_Toc497887993
> Law enforcement DOES use satellite video surveillance, it's a fact.
> 
> What Long did is on videotape.  You can take that to the bank.  This tape should be made available to the Mattia's and a civil court as evidence.



I'd like to hear more about how this is supposedly on videotape somewhere. Would like to expound on your ignorance?


----------



## itsbob

MMDad said:
			
		

> I'd like to hear more about how this is supposedly on videotape somewhere. Would like to expound on your ignorance?


you didn't know that the NSA, NASA, the CIA and the FBI let local law enforcement use their satellite assets when serving a deadbeat warrant??  Geeze Louise, what rock have you been hiding under, it's been on ALL the news channels!!


----------



## LPGM2003

*What the FBI Investigates*

http://www.fbi.gov/hq.htm

For all the people saying that the FBI should get involved.

I do not see where they handle cases in the event a dog is shot and killed.


----------



## MiMiMi

otter said:
			
		

> I wish you folks would quit with the court crap..No one was there except the dog and the cop..No way a judge or jury is gonna convict Long of a damn thing. Arguing the court angle is as much of a red herring as arguing about the other 2 dogs.
> 
> If a cop has a warrant for someone, fine..but doing damage or killing an animal on property thats owned by someone else, regardless of whether they are kin or not, is piss poor police work. This warrant was not for an 'armed and dangerous felon', common sense should have dictated the actions of the cop. Being 'justified or within the rules' in killing the dog does not make it right when just a little brainpower could have prevented all of this.


 I was not arguing the court angle.  I was merely stating that no matter what the outcome of this situation it wouldn't make everyone happy.  I don't believe in wasting the courts time on something that has already been settled.


----------



## p3photogal

Ok, just have to say...it says on the packaging for choke collars that are metal chain, that dogs are not to be left alone wearing them.  I don't know MD law, but in VA, you can't have your dog tethered outside for any reason, or any amount of time without, a doghouse that has a solid roof, two side walls and floor, food and water.  My dogs are like my children, if you want to take good care of your pets, crate train them and don't leave them outside in the heat and threat of getting their chain choke collars stuck mid chain.  


Also, if the dog was chained anywhere but the front yard, how did the dog get to the front doorstep to be shot and laying in a pool of blood unless it broke the leash.  I did read the washington Posts article on this topic, and many pages of the thread...until I couldn't take any longer.  


Sorry for your loss, but you should have a BEWARE of DOG sign clearly posted if there is any threat of your dog biting anyone.  It's the law.


----------



## willie

p3photogal said:
			
		

> Ok, just have to say... My dogs are like my children, if you want to take good care of your pets, crate train them and don't leave them outside


Do you use a different crate for the kids?


----------



## Tomahawk202

I don' t know, but maybe it's just me, but I thought that being a good cop also included  a small thing called common sense. I have been in countless situations where dogs were involved, and I have only had to shoot a dog once.  I don't know what they are training the cops around here to do, but if a bite seems unavoidable, try to stop the dog with you're non-shooting hand, and when he bites, blow him away with your shooting hand. One, you have to get bit, but at least you are alive, two, you justified to the media, press, and supervisors, not to mention the general public that you didn't do what this dude did, which is go in there and start blasting away. How? Cause you took the bite, then shot. 
 Now I am not advocating getting bit first, then shooting, but hey, if the damn dog is on the leash, they you shouldn't be shooting at all. Period. He isn't a threat if you can walk away. 
  Just goes to show that all of the rumors I have heard about CCSO is true, they love mediocrity, and can you believe this cop was number 2 on the corporal's list?


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> He didn't murder max.  He killed max in self defense.  Vote Rex Coffee out of office.  I voted for Fred Davis.  Haha.
> 
> How come your not answering my question?  Why do you keep bringing up the other dogs when the newspaper reported what occurred with them.
> 
> Don't you understand.  This is over.  Long wins, Mattia looses.  Blame the son.  And as a bonus, you are going to vote against the guy I don't like!
> 
> You won't be in court because Mattia is a liar and can't bring Long to court.  Don't you think if there were any sort of case her Mattia would have brought it?  Don't you think if there were any chance the cop did something wrong one of the competent tort attorneys in Southern Maryland would have been banging on Mattia's door?
> 
> Just because the sherriffs office told the papers the version of what they want the public to know about the other two dogs cases, doesnt mean that it is correct.  Please tell me why when you try to get a copy of the reports in which these other two dogs were killed, you either have to have the persons name that owned the dog or the case number.
> 
> So what if Mattia said that Max was harmless and didnt mention that he nipped at another.  Point is Max was shot at 7 times by an officer that had already put down two dogs.  How come this officer was no where to be found when the son pulled up to the house.   Max alledgely bit the officer, but the officer still should have been able to perform his duty with his "pinch" mark.
> 
> Come on.  I took you for a person who was thinking with your emotions rather than your logic, but I didn't think you were stupid!



was shot at 7 times by an officer that had already put down two dogs.  How come this officer was no where to be found when the son pulled up to the house.   Max alledgely bit the officer, but the officer still should have been able to perform his duty with his "pinch" mark.


----------



## dmh

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I don' t know, but maybe it's just me, but I thought that being a good cop also included  a small thing called common sense. I have been in countless situations where dogs were involved, and I have only had to shoot a dog once.  I don't know what they are training the cops around here to do, but if a bite seems unavoidable, try to stop the dog with you're non-shooting hand, and when he bites, blow him away with your shooting hand. One, you have to get bit, but at least you are alive, two, you justified to the media, press, and supervisors, not to mention the general public that you didn't do what this dude did, which is go in there and start blasting away. How? Cause you took the bite, then shot.
> Now I am not advocating getting bit first, then shooting, but hey, if the damn dog is on the leash, they you shouldn't be shooting at all. Period. He isn't a threat if you can walk away.
> Just goes to show that all of the rumors I have heard about CCSO is true, they love mediocrity, and can you believe this cop was number 2 on the corporal's list?



Very Well Said


----------



## dmh

huntr1 said:
			
		

> Why OH WHY can't you all let this thread die already?  After reading a small percentage of the posts in this thread, about 8 pages, I now support Long JUST because I wish this thread would die already.  Kill a person and get a 3 day thread, kill a dog and get an immortal thread...



Well Max was tied up when he was shot by a person that is paid to serve and protect.   I think this thread needs to continue until there is justice for Max.


----------



## MiMiMi

dmh said:
			
		

> Well Max was tied up when he was shot by a person that is paid to serve and protect.   I think this thread needs to continue until there is justice for Max.


 The verdict has been read and whether or not you agree with it, it is over.  No one is going to retry the case.  Because no law was broken.


----------



## JohnnyReb

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I don' t know, but maybe it's just me, but I thought that being a good cop also included  a small thing called common sense. I have been in countless situations where dogs were involved, and I have only had to shoot a dog once.  I don't know what they are training the cops around here to do, *but if a bite seems unavoidable, try to stop the dog with you're non-shooting hand, and when he bites, blow him away with your shooting hand. One, you have to get bit, but at least you are alive, two, you justified to the media, press, and supervisors, not to mention the general public that you didn't do what this dude did, which is go in there and start blasting away. How? Cause you took the bite, then shot. * _ Now I am not advocating getting bit first, then shooting, but _ hey, if the damn dog is on the leash, they you shouldn't be shooting at all. Period. He isn't a threat if you can walk away.
> Just goes to show that all of the rumors I have heard about CCSO is true, they love mediocrity, and can you believe this cop was number 2 on the corporal's list?




That seems to be EXACTLY what you are saying. 


And thanks for the agency bashing... 

I like how you know the dog was on a leash, and how you know Long just "went in there and started blasting away".  Are you a witness of something?  If you are I'll need a report from you.


----------



## 88stringslouie

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> That seems to be EXACTLY what you are saying.
> 
> 
> And thanks for the agency bashing...
> 
> I like how you know the dog was on a leash, and how you know Long just "went in there and started blasting away".  Are you a witness of something?  If you are I'll need a report from you.



Sounds like Coffey himself.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only wacko that thinks that we should raise hell until one of these perpetrators says "uncle".

The CCSO is no court, and cannot render a verdict.  That will be done by a court or law, or, by the voting taxpayers next election cycle.

Justice will be sweet.  Everyone, just where a picture of Max on a T-shirt at the election booths.


----------



## dmh

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Sounds like Coffey himself.
> It's nice to know that I'm not the only wacko that thinks that we should raise hell until one of these perpetrators says "uncle".
> 
> The CCSO is no court, and cannot render a verdict.  That will be done by a court or law, or, by the voting taxpayers next election cycle.
> 
> Justice will be sweet.  Everyone, just wear a picture of Max on a T-shirt at the election booths.




You are being unfair by saying you are a wacko!  I think that everyone that beleives justice has been served with the CCSO rendering their decision, is the wackos.   This cop killed not 1, not 2 not 3 dogs.  yes yes yes, we know what the sherriffs office says about the other two dogs, but funny thing is ------ NO POLICE REPORT CAN BE OBTAINED!!!!!!!!!! -----  they are just covering their own, Coffey had my vote the last two elections and sorry to say, not the next election.  We have four years of this, bs!  amazing!


----------



## u gotta love me

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I don' t know, but maybe it's just me, but I thought that being a good cop also included  a small thing called common sense. I have been in countless situations where dogs were involved, and I have only had to shoot a dog once.  I don't know what they are training the cops around here to do, but if a bite seems unavoidable, try to stop the dog with you're non-shooting hand, and when he bites, blow him away with your shooting hand. One, you have to get bit, but at least you are alive, two, you justified to the media, press, and supervisors, not to mention the general public that you didn't do what this dude did, which is go in there and start blasting away. How? Cause you took the bite, then shot.
> Now I am not advocating getting bit first, then shooting, but hey, if the damn dog is on the leash, they you shouldn't be shooting at all. Period. He isn't a threat if you can walk away.
> Just goes to show that all of the rumors I have heard about CCSO is true, they love mediocrity, and can you believe this cop was number 2 on the corporal's list?




Couldnt have said it better myself!


----------



## PrchJrkr

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Couldnt have said it better myself!



Yes, quite a story teller, that tomahawk.


----------



## MiMiMi

dmh said:
			
		

> You are being unfair by saying you are a wacko!  I think that everyone that beleives justice has been served with the CCSO rendering their decision, is the wackos.   This cop killed not 1, not 2 not 3 dogs.  yes yes yes, we know what the sherriffs office says about the other two dogs, but funny thing is ------ NO POLICE REPORT CAN BE OBTAINED!!!!!!!!!! -----  they are just covering their own, Coffey had my vote the last two elections and sorry to say, not the next election.  We have four years of this, bs!  amazing!


 Wackos ??  Not only did the Sheriff's Office render their decision, the State's Attorney's Office did too.  So I guess they too are Wackos.  And as far as electing Sheriff Coffey, if your only criteria about whether a Sheriff is doing a good job is whether he serves justice to your liking then you are the wacko.  I feel bad for the dog, but I am much more concerned that the Sheriff of our county spends his time and resources fighting crime.  Think about it.  Arresting the murderer of an innocent child in Bannister or investigating Officer Long for the commission of NO CRIME.  I don't know about you but I think the first is a little more important.


----------



## heavenly was

think we will hit 200 pages? i hope so!!


----------



## Tomahawk202

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> That seems to be EXACTLY what you are saying.
> 
> 
> And thanks for the agency bashing...
> 
> I like how you know the dog was on a leash, and how you know Long just "went in there and started blasting away".  Are you a witness of something?  If you are I'll need a report from you.



 Well thanks for proving my point for me. Wouldn't be able to do it without you.  
You guys up there in CCSO do it to yourselves. You have a chip on your shoulders, and act like you are better than everyone else. ( which we know isn't the case ) I know for a fact that the public doesn't really know what happened there. Maybe I should share  how he is a golden child in the agency and can do no wrong, and if so the CCSO will just turn a blind eye. Hey, that's the way it is over there isn't it?
 LOL HAHAHAHAHA   
I would like to see him stand trial like Mike Vic. I know from past experience that you can get more time for mistreating animals, then you can if you were to mistreat your own children, genius! 
As far as the agency bashing, grow some balls.  I hope you don't whine like that while you are in uniform.


----------



## Tomahawk202

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> Wackos ??  Not only did the Sheriff's Office render their decision, the State's Attorney's Office did too.  So I guess they too are Wackos.  And as far as electing Sheriff Coffey,* if your only criteria about whether a Sheriff is doing a good job is whether he serves justice to your liking then you are the wacko.  I feel bad for the dog, but I am much more concerned that the Sheriff of our county spends his time and resources fighting crime.  Think about it.  Arresting the murderer of an innocent child in Bannister or investigating Officer Long for the commission of NO CRIME. * I don't know about you but I think the first is a little more important.



Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there for a minute, moron. Now lets see, the job of the police is to " SERVE and PROTECT".  " ...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." so therefore, if the public ( that would be us ) doesn't like officers walking up into their yards, and killing their pets, ( which we don't ) then we have a RIGHT to express that.   

And as far as comparing the killing of a dog (albeit in cold blood) to the murder of an innocent child, well WickDeed, you should be ashamed of yourself.......


----------



## camily

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Well thanks for proving my point for me. Wouldn't be able to do it without you.
> You guys up there in CCSO do it to yourselves. You have a chip on your shoulders, and act like you are better than everyone else. ( which we know isn't the case ) I know for a fact that the public doesn't really know what happened there. Maybe I should share  how he is a golden child in the agency and can do no wrong, and if so the CCSO will just turn a blind eye. Hey, that's the way it is over there isn't it?
> LOL HAHAHAHAHA
> I would like to see him stand trial like Mike Vic. I know from past experience that you can get more time for mistreating animals, then you can if you were to mistreat your own children, genius!
> As far as the agency bashing, grow some balls.  I hope you don't whine like that while you are in uniform.


HAHAHAHA!!!!! I know for SURE he is not the "Golden Child" on the force.


----------



## camily

Charles County officer ... 07-30-2007 07:57 PM like your opinion counts  
I think that was supposed to be taken in a valleygirl voice...
"Like, your opinion counts!" Some might have added "totally" after that, but I'll take the compliment as it is.
Thanks!


----------



## Speedy70

I've been wondering what's been going on with this case, but I didn't want to be the one to bump the thread. 

The family took their signs down a couple of weeks ago.  I was wondering why they suddenly did that.


----------



## itsbob

Didn't Ofc Long just get run over by a State Cop??


----------



## jetmonkey

Another dog tried to murder my dog at the dog park yesterday.


----------



## desertrat

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> Another dog tried to murder my dog at the dog park yesterday.


doggycide!


----------



## Richard Cranium

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> Another dog tried to murder my dog at the dog park yesterday.



:bangbangbang:


----------



## OldHillcrestGuy

itsbob said:
			
		

> Didn't Ofc Long just get run over by a State Cop??



  Different Ofc. Long


----------



## Lenny

Wrong Long?


----------



## u gotta love me

OldHillcrestGuy said:
			
		

> Different Ofc. Long




TooBAD!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FrankBama1234

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> TooBAD!!!!!!!!!


I guess you want to see Long run over by a car now? You are a Jack Ass...


----------



## dmh

dmh said:
			
		

> Well Max was tied up when he was shot by a person that is paid to serve and protect.   I think this thread needs to continue until there is justice for Max.





Charles County officer ... 07-08-2007 06:33 PM Max did get his justice. He's dead just like he's supposed to be.   


This is the karma I got for my above quote -- some people are so disrespectful on this site.


----------



## JohnnyReb

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> TooBAD!!!!!!!!!




What the hell is wrong with you?


----------



## u gotta love me

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> What the hell is wrong with you?




And you dont see anything wrong with an officer that kills a dog that is chained up!  and your problem would be .....?


----------



## JohnnyReb

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> And you dont see anything wrong with an officer that kills a dog that is chained up!  and your problem would be .....?



The dog was not "chained up".

Don't you see anything wrong with what you stated?


----------



## camily

Lenny said:
			
		

> Wrong Long?


Wrong Duck Long


----------



## Tomahawk202

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> *The dog was not "chained up"*.
> 
> Don't you see anything wrong with what you stated?



  Come on now...let's get this straight, you want me to believe that a dog was shot ( fact ) by Officer Long, (fact) that just so happened to have shot two other dogs, prior to this incident? ( fact ) Man, that just doesn't pass the smell test.. Sorry, not that stupid. Maybe someone else might believe that crap, but not here/me. 

   Oh and this, "  	07-31-2007 10:30 PM  	You are really, really rude. I'm sorry for the sick in your ass!  " 


    I guess the " sick was supposed to be " Stick"? At least be an adult and sign your negative karma, like me. But I don't mind. Doesn't bother me one bit......


----------



## JohnnyReb

Yes it was supposed to be stick


----------



## u gotta love me

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> The dog was not "chained up".
> 
> Don't you see anything wrong with what you stated?




Actually, No I dont see anything wrong with what I said -- would you like to be the one to point it out to me?   


Any by the way, the dog was "chained up".


----------



## jessie_101

My question is this.  I have dogs. It's my property. My property is also fenced in.  I don't keep my dogs on a chain because of the fence.   At what point is there a accountibilty on this deputy.  I shouldn't have to worry that if my dogs are on my property that if a police officer comes there that my dogs will be shot  just because my dogs may jump at them or he may feel threatened.  What reasoning was used for him to not call animal control when he seen that there was a dog on the property.  Based on this In essence I can't let my dogs roam free on my property because if the police ever come there for any reason they have the right to shoot and kill my dogs ? That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of.


----------



## tom88

jessie_101 said:
			
		

> My question is this.  I have dogs. It's my property. My property is also fenced in.  I don't keep my dogs on a chain because of the fence.   At what point is there a accountibilty on this deputy.  I shouldn't have to worry that if my dogs are on my property that if a police officer comes there that my dogs will be shot  just because my dogs may jump at them or he may feel threatened.  What reasoning was used for him to not call animal control when he seen that there was a dog on the property.  Based on this In essence I can't let my dogs roam free on my property because if the police ever come there for any reason they have the right to shoot and kill my dogs ? That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard of.



The thing about this is there is no proof the dog was chained up except that of the word of the property owner, and it has already been shown that he lied about the dogs temperment.  The owner of the dog said the dog would never bite anyone, then we learned the dog had already attacked a neighbor.

If officers are looking for people who are wanted, they have a right to knock on the persons doors.  There was no beware of dogs sign posted, so how do we know the officer had time to contact animal control?

There has been a lot of mis-information about this guy shooting two other dogs, but it was released by the newspaper that he shot the other dogs at the request of the owner after the dogs violently attacked the owner and were still being aggresive.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Actually, No I dont see anything wrong with what I said -- would you like to be the one to point it out to me?
> 
> 
> Any by the way, the dog was "chained up".



How do you know the dog was chained up?  Long disputes that, and nobody has proven Long to be a liar, such as they have with Mattia!


----------



## Tinkerbell

tom88 said:
			
		

> The thing about this is there is no proof the dog was chained up except that of the word of the property owner, and it has already been shown that he lied about the dogs temperment.  The owner of the dog said the dog would never bite anyone, then we learned the dog had already attacked a neighbor.
> 
> If officers are looking for people who are wanted, they have a right to knock on the persons doors.  There was no beware of dogs sign posted, so how do we know the officer had time to contact animal control?
> 
> There has been a lot of mis-information about this guy shooting two other dogs, but it was released by the newspaper that he shot the other dogs at the request of the owner after the dogs violently attacked the owner and were still being aggresive.


Maybe the bigger point is, after the officer knocked on the front door, and got no response, why did he proceed around the house to other doors? Is it normal for them to do this?


----------



## tom88

Tinkerbell said:
			
		

> Maybe the bigger point is, after the officer knocked on the front door, and got no response, why did he proceed around the house to other doors? Is it normal for them to do this?


 Yes it is normal for an officer who is knocking at a door where a person has a warrant to knock at a door, get no answer then knock around the house to see if someone's home.


----------



## Tomahawk202

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes it is normal for an officer who is knocking at a door where a person has a warrant to knock at a door, get no answer then knock around the house to see if someone's home.



If you are a cop, you need to be re-trained, as well as a healthy dose of common sense. If you are not, shut up.


----------



## tom88

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> If you are a cop, you need to be re-trained, as well as a healthy dose of common sense. If you are not, shut up.


 No, I'm not a cop, however I am well versed in the fourth and sixth amendments which is what you would say the officer violated with his knock on the rear door.  I am also well versed on the first amendment, which is my right to free speech.

Your comment for me to shut up is rude.  I am sorry if you don't like the facts but the facts are as they are.  You may choose to add things or have imaginary facts involved in this but the facts are the facts.

The officer reported the dog attacked him and he did what he was trained to do.  Stop the threat!

I would much rather have a dead dog than have my county tax dollars pay for the early retirement of a police officer because of being mauled by a dog, not to mention the toll the mauling may have taken on the officer.  I am sorry for the dogs loss, but human life is much more important than an animals.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> No, I'm not a cop, however I am well versed in the fourth and sixth amendments which is what you would say the officer violated with his knock on the rear door.  I am also well versed on the first amendment, which is my right to free speech.
> 
> Your comment for me to shut up is rude.  I am sorry if you don't like the facts but the facts are as they are.  You may choose to add things or have imaginary facts involved in this but the facts are the facts.
> 
> The officer reported the dog attacked him and he did what he was trained to do.  Stop the threat!
> 
> I would much rather have a dead dog than have my county tax dollars pay for the early retirement of a police officer because of being mauled by a dog, not to mention the toll the mauling may have taken on the officer.  I am sorry for the dogs loss, but human life is much more important than an animals.



You have got to be kidding by saying someone is rude!  Just about every post you made on this thread early on was rude.  The facts that you have are bull.  You have the facts that the CCSO wants you to have.  

Speak for yourself as far as to where you want your tax dollars!  I for one would believe that the officer would not have been mauled, bitten or even scratched by nothing other than his own self.   I am very sorry for the loss of the dog as well, but I beleive my facts where in the dog was tied up.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> You have got to be kidding by saying someone is rude!  Just about every post you made on this thread early on was rude.  The facts that you have are bull.  You have the facts that the CCSO wants you to have.
> 
> Speak for yourself as far as to where you want your tax dollars!  I for one would believe that the officer would not have been mauled, bitten or even scratched by nothing other than his own self.   I am very sorry for the loss of the dog as well, but I beleive my facts where in the dog was tied up.



From what credible source do you have that the dog was tied up?  This officer has never been found to be a liar.  Can you say the same for Mattia?

I only was rude to those who were rude to me!  I give what I get.


----------



## tom88

You people really are emotional about this subject.  I am sorry your judgment is clouded by your emotions.  I think you should be more open about it.  If your going to post the karma, that's fine, but why not post it in the thread so everyone can see it?  While I disagree with Tomahawk, at least he is an honarable guy who signs his karma then prints if for all to see.  The rest of you really are so wrapped up with the karma thing you don't want to sign it in fear of someone giving you red karma.  (haha) That really is childish and really makes you look scared!


----------



## tom88

You're too stupid to realize we like to see you screaming like a little girl over karma.. 
 Charles County officer ... 08-06-2007 07:46 PM You're too stupid to realize we like to see you screaming like a little girl over karma..  

Lmao.  Look this looser even has her MPD leaving identical karma.  Come on, have some imagination.  I invited people to give me red karma I don't care.  I like the color red.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> From what credible source do you have that the dog was tied up?  This officer has never been found to be a liar.  Can you say the same for Mattia?
> 
> I only was rude to those who were rude to me!  I give what I get.




Well considering that the CCSO did not take photographs of the alledge bite wound, and the Mattias are the ones that went public with this story, if the Mattias were lying, why would they come foward?   Being a police officer, you should be trained to take photos of evidence, right?   well no photos taken, hummmm, got to wonder why.......


----------



## Mikeinsmd




----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Well considering that the CCSO did not take photographs of the alledge bite wound, and the Mattias are the ones that went public with this story, if the Mattias were lying, why would they come foward?   Being a police officer, you should be trained to take photos of evidence, right?   well no photos taken, hummmm, got to wonder why.......


 I'm not a police officer.  And I am not alleging Joe Mattias lied.  He did!  Do you remember when he told the press his dog would never attack anyone, then we later find out the dog already attacked a neighbor!  Why don't you acknowlege Mattia lied?
Your judgment is clouded by emotion.

Face it!  The cop did nothing wrong, and you can not do anything about it!


----------



## virgovictoria

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

>




I'll see your post and raise it :


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> I'm not a police officer.  And I am not alleging Joe Mattias lied.  He did!  Do you remember when he told the press his dog would never attack anyone, then we later find out the dog already attacked a neighbor!  Why don't you acknowlege Mattia lied?
> Your judgment is clouded by emotion.
> 
> Face it!  The cop did nothing wrong, and you can not do anything about it!



he will shoot again, and when he does, there will be even more public outcry, and the department wont be able to keep sweeping the screw ups under the carpet, they will be forced to take action one of these times...once a trigger happy person, always a trigger happy person.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> he will shoot again, and when he does, there will be even more public outcry, and the department wont be able to keep sweeping the screw ups under the carpet, they will be forced to take action one of these times...once a trigger happy person, always a trigger happy person.



See what you don't get is the department CAN'T do anything to the officer because he was given due process and was found not at fault!  So no matter what happens the next time, the agency can't hold this time or the last time against him!

Get over it.  The officer did nothing wrong.  All your complaining is wasted!  Also, vote Rex Coffee out.. that will help them all!


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> Face it!  The cop did nothing wrong, and you can not do anything about it!



The cop did nothing wrong???? Explain how he did NOTHING wrong..no wonder you are so far in the red..The dog being dead is perfectly okay with you because  the cop was serving a warrant on someone that didn't own the house?? I said it before and I will say it again, the cop should have known that he was serving a warrant on someone that didn't own the property. Having a warrant on unpaid child support does not equate to the level of destroying someone else's property. There were no pictures to show any proof the cop was bitten, but just cuz he said so, its jake with you? If you weren't so up the azz of the cops, you'd question it too..but no, you stick your head in the sand and are convinced that the cops did a thorough investigation. The other 2 dogs that the cop killed have as much bearing on this as does Mattia lying. Okay, he lies, but did he lie about the dog being chained?? Do you lie when you say you have nothing to do with the police?? So what you're saying is this is business as usual for the police, I'm serving a warrant so I don't need any common sense..Is that it, Tom?? And I don't want to hear any double talk out of ya, I don't care about the other 2 dogs and I don't care that Mattia lies. You're saying its perfectly okay for a cop to enter someone else's property because he has a child support warrant, knows there is a dog on the premises, knock on 2 doors, then proceeds to the 3rd door where he knows there is a dog..and shoots him, no matter whether the dog is chained or not, but I do find it odd that the 'unchained' dog didn't cause any problems til the cop hit the 3rd door...Thats the common sense you want out of your police force?? For all your supposed support of the police, I would think you would want a better thought process out of your public service folks.


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> The cop did nothing wrong???? Explain how he did NOTHING wrong..no wonder you are so far in the red..The dog being dead is perfectly okay with you because  the cop was serving a warrant on someone that didn't own the house?? I said it before and I will say it again, the cop should have known that he was serving a warrant on someone that didn't own the property. Having a warrant on unpaid child support does not equate to the level of destroying someone else's property. There were no pictures to show any proof the cop was bitten, but just cuz he said so, its jake with you? If you weren't so up the azz of the cops, you'd question it too..but no, you stick your head in the sand and are convinced that the cops did a thorough investigation. The other 2 dogs that the cop killed have as much bearing on this as does Mattia lying. Okay, he lies, but did he lie about the dog being chained?? Do you lie when you say you have nothing to do with the police?? So what you're saying is this is business as usual for the police, I'm serving a warrant so I don't need any common sense..Is that it, Tom?? And I don't want to hear any double talk out of ya, I don't care about the other 2 dogs and I don't care that Mattia lies. You're saying its perfectly okay for a cop to enter someone else's property because he has a child support warrant, knows there is a dog on the premises, knock on 2 doors, then proceeds to the 3rd door where he knows there is a dog..and shoots him, no matter whether the dog is chained or not, but I do find it odd that the 'unchained' dog didn't cause any problems til the cop hit the 3rd door...Thats the common sense you want out of your police force?? For all your supposed support of the police, I would think you would want a better thought process out of your public service folks.


 Nope.  I'm ok with the service.  Thats all I want.


----------



## otter

Fair enough, then all your red is well deserved.


----------



## Pandora

I learned how to approach a dog a long time ago.  You hold out the back of your hand and anytime you go onto property, you assess the area.  I was trained that in the academy.  To always access my surroundings.  

I was a law enforcement Cadet in the 80's, due to medical reasons, I didn't go into the academy as a police officer, but I did go back into the academy a few years ago. 

Have I made mistakes? Yes, I went onto property and had a dog jump out of a wrecked van, scared me 1/2 to death but when I walked backwards, showing no aggression towards the animal, it didn't charge me.  I did sit on my car for a while to be totally sure it wasn't going to bite me.   So, had that been this officer, he would have shot this ladies dog and frankly, it was the only thing she felt she had in the world at the time due to some tragedy of her own.  That incident stood out in my mind when this story first broke because it had happened just 2-weeks prior to this.    

Tom, 

You have posted in this thread over and over again defending the officer.  I cannot find anything logical about shooting this dog.  The officer didn't assess his situation, the dog was shot next to his leash and I find it impossible that a dog would have broken free from its leash and stayed close by.  Whenever I have had any dog get away from a leash, it has been down the street strolling.  

This officer is no different than that idiot cop that shot that snake out of a bird house.  It was unnecessary force.  I'll go ahead and even make a racial statement here.  Was this officer black?  I notice black people are more afraid of dogs than white people, but either way, I think this cop is afraid of dogs.  

I'd also be interested in hearing what the ratio of other dogs have been shot by all the officers.  I was a police dispatcher for 14 years and nobody ever shot a dog while I was there.  EVER!


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> I learned how to approach a dog a long time ago.  You hold out the back of your hand and anytime you go onto property, you assess the area.  I was trained that in the academy.  To always access my surroundings.
> 
> I was a law enforcement Cadet in the 80's, due to medical reasons, I didn't go into the academy as a police officer, but I did go back into the academy a few years ago.
> 
> Have I made mistakes? Yes, I went onto property and had a dog jump out of a wrecked van, scared me 1/2 to death but when I walked backwards, showing no aggression towards the animal, it didn't charge me.  I did sit on my car for a while to be totally sure it wasn't going to bite me.   So, had that been this officer, he would have shot this ladies dog and frankly, it was the only thing she felt she had in the world at the time due to some tragedy of her own.  That incident stood out in my mind when this story first broke because it had happened just 2-weeks prior to this.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> You have posted in this thread over and over again defending the officer.  I cannot find anything logical about shooting this dog.  The officer didn't assess his situation, the dog was shot next to his leash and I find it impossible that a dog would have broken free from its leash and stayed close by.  Whenever I have had any dog get away from a leash, it has been down the street strolling.
> 
> This officer is no different than that idiot cop that shot that snake out of a bird house.  It was unnecessary force.  I'll go ahead and even make a racial statement here.  Was this officer black?  I notice black people are more afraid of dogs than white people, but either way, I think this cop is afraid of dogs.
> 
> I'd also be interested in hearing what the ratio of other dogs have been shot by all the officers.  I was a police dispatcher for 14 years and nobody ever shot a dog while I was there.  EVER!



What you did and what this officer did are different things.  There was another officer on this thread who said he shot two dogs in the line of duty in his years on the job.  I don't remember how many years he had on, but this was someone other than Long.

Everyone is ignoring the fact that Long was bitten.  It was his perception that he was in danger and it was his perception that he didn't want to be mauled.  We just want to blame him for killing this dog.  I said on my very first post that killing the dog was tragic.  I felt for Mattias until I learned he lied to us.  What did he do by lying to us, he made this an emotional issue, saying his dog was docile and would never attack anyone.

Later we learned that wasn't true, but the damage was done!  I highly doubt this officer went out this day and decided he was going to kill this dog.  The Washington Post reported the officer shot two other dogs in the line of duty at the request of the owner, after the owner was attacked by the dogs.  But everyone chooses to discredit that information and keep with information provided by a confirmed liar!

Use your logic and realize that Mattias is using you to further a lie!  The dog attacked the police officer!  The police officer won!


----------



## Pandora

Tom, 

My husband has been a police officer since 1990, that would be 17 years, and he has never shot a dog.

What was the lie told?  I have seen it mentioned as just a "lie" but unless you come out and say what it was and how it was proven a lie, it is heresay.


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> Fair enough, then all your red is well deserved.


 Thank you I like red!


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Thank you I like red!



  TOM NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU LIKE!!


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> My husband has been a police officer since 1990, that would be 17 years, and he has never shot a dog.
> 
> What was the lie told?  I have seen it mentioned as just a "lie" but unless you come out and say what it was and how it was proven a lie, it is heresay.


 So what does that mean?  My father was a police officer for thirty years and never shot his gun in the line of duty.  My brother was a police officer for 11 years in Baltimore and was involved in two shootings, one where he was shot.  Another brother has been a state trooper for 17 years and never shot his gun in the line of duty.  Every officer has different experiences. 
If a dog was mauling your husband would you not want him to defend himself?


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> What you did and what this officer did are different things.  There was another officer on this thread who said he shot two dogs in the line of duty in his years on the job.  I don't remember how many years he had on, but this was someone other than Long.
> 
> Everyone is ignoring the fact that Long was bitten.  It was his perception that he was in danger and it was his perception that he didn't want to be mauled.  We just want to blame him for killing this dog.  I said on my very first post that killing the dog was tragic.  I felt for Mattias until I learned he lied to us.  What did he do by lying to us, he made this an emotional issue, saying his dog was docile and would never attack anyone.
> 
> Later we learned that wasn't true, but the damage was done!  I highly doubt this officer went out this day and decided he was going to kill this dog.  The Washington Post reported the officer shot two other dogs in the line of duty at the request of the owner, after the owner was attacked by the dogs.  But everyone chooses to discredit that information and keep with information provided by a confirmed liar!
> 
> Use your logic and realize that Mattias is using you to further a lie!  The dog attacked the police officer!  The police officer won!



So who is us??? And you didn't answer a damn question that I asked you, you went back to the 2 dogs and the lying crap again. Quit dodging, azzhat.


----------



## cattitude

tom88 said:
			
		

> If a dog was mauling your husband would you not want him to defend himself?



Long wasn't mauled.  His skin wasn't even broken, was it?


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> So what does that mean?  My father was a police officer for thirty years and never shot his gun in the line of duty.  My brother was a police officer for 11 years in Baltimore and was involved in two shootings, one where he was shot.  Another brother has been a state trooper for 17 years and never shot his gun in the line of duty.  Every officer has different experiences.
> If a dog was mauling your husband would you not want him to defend himself?




I don't feel that this officer was mauled.  He had responded to calls at that house before due to stolen ATV's or dirt bikes, whatever, so the officer knew there was a dog there.  My father was a police officer for well over 30 years and involved in shootings, so has my husband, but I am simply stating that neither of those men, nor anyone I worked with while in law enforcement had to shot a dog. 


Now the lie? You were going to explain?


----------



## Pandora

tom88
Registered User

Last Activity: Today 10:41 PM 
*Viewing* Thread Charles County officer murders dog @ 10:41 PM 


You are not* responding* Tom, the lie, what was it, how did they lie, please explain.


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> So who is us??? And you didn't answer a damn question that I asked you, you went back to the 2 dogs and the lying crap again. Quit dodging, azzhat.


 I answered your question.  I said "Nope. I'm ok with the service. Thats all I want."

No need to call me a name!


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> tom88
> Registered User
> 
> Last Activity: Today 10:41 PM
> *Viewing* Thread Charles County officer murders dog @ 10:41 PM
> 
> 
> You are not* responding* Tom, the lie, what was it, how did they lie, please explain.



They said the dog would never bite anyone.  The dog bit the neighbor two years prior.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> What you did and what this officer did are different things.  There was another officer on this thread who said he shot two dogs in the line of duty in his years on the job.  I don't remember how many years he had on, but this was someone other than Long.
> 
> Everyone is ignoring the fact that Long was bitten.  It was his perception that he was in danger and it was his perception that he didn't want to be mauled.  We just want to blame him for killing this dog.  I said on my very first post that killing the dog was tragic.  I felt for Mattias until I learned he lied to us.  What did he do by lying to us, he made this an emotional issue, saying his dog was docile and would never attack anyone.
> 
> Later we learned that wasn't true, but the damage was done!  I highly doubt this officer went out this day and decided he was going to kill this dog.  The Washington Post reported the officer shot two other dogs in the line of duty at the request of the owner, after the owner was attacked by the dogs.  But everyone chooses to discredit that information and keep with information provided by a confirmed liar!
> 
> Use your logic and realize that Mattias is using you to further a lie!  The dog attacked the police officer!  The police officer won!




TOM---- IT WAS SOMDCOP THAT MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE AS A POLICE OFFICER HAS SHOT TWO OTHER DOGS AND BELOW IS A QUOTE OF HIS THREAD  AND I  BELIEVE HIS VERY FIRST SENTENCE MAY BE DIRECTED AT YOU --

smcop06-20-2007, 10:36 AM
That cop has to be the biggest idiot...and anyone who supports him is also an idiot. Let's look at this in a logical way.

1. If noone answers the first 2 doors you knock on, do you really think they are going to answer the 3rd? Even if the guy was indoors and hiding, was he going to answer the 3rd door thinking to himself "I guess this cop isn't going to give up..so I better." 

2. Did this cop not see the dog? If he didn't then he shouldn't be a cop. Cops are supposed to be very observing. It is their job. They are supposed to also have common sense. If I were a cop and saw a dog chained up near the door, I would NOT APPROACH...PERIOD! Cops are taught that every situation can be dangerous, so the COP was an idiot for approaching the dog in the first place. Even if he did get bit, it was his own fault. 

3. An arrest warrant is not the same as a search warrant. An arrest warrant does not give an officer the right to search property with out just cause that the warranted individual is actually present on the property. He would have to have seen the individual personally or have an eyewitness that saw the person. Therefor, since NONE of that info was printed, he didn't have just cause to enter the property other than knocking on the door. Private Property is just that...PRIVATE. They have to KNOW that the person is there before "breaking down the door" or whatever.

4. Since the dog was on a chain, why did cop get within the dog's reach? Apparantly this cop doesn't have the slightest bit of common sense. 

5. Was it necessary to shoot the dog 7 times? I doubt it. He probably shot the dog once or twice then realized his mistake and shot the dog several more times to make it appear that the dog broke it's chain. In my opinion he tried to cover up his mistake.

6. Once the dog bite him, why didn't he just step backwards? The dog was on a chain and the cop would have been able to get out of the dogs reach by taking a few steps backwards. 

7. My last point is that this is not the first time it has happened. It didn't happen just once..but twice before. Use some common sense people. How many other cops have shot multiple dogs. Or does this guy just have bad luck with dogs?

All in all, I don't see how anyone can find this cop justified in his actions. Cops are supposed to be taught to react to dangerous situations. What if the dog was actually an 8 year old little boy pointing a toy gun at the cop? Would you find the cop justified if he shot him? I don't think so. This cop apparantly does not have what it takes mentally to be a police officer. I think this cop should be FIRED PERIOD! There is NO justification for what he did. 

I know I have repeated what alot of others have already said..but I wanted to post my opinion also.
I have looked at this stuff and mostly gotten bored. One thing I want to point out is I have been a cop for 12 years and have shot two dogs. One was a puppy who was hit by a large pick up truck, and the other was a dog who was hit by a delievery truck. I hated shooting either of them but it was the right thing to do. 

Now, I hope that I never have to shoot a dog who is coming after me, especially after reading all the stuff people have assumed about this Officer Long. There seems to be a lot of assumptions made about his actions without giving him due process. But if I do have to shoot a dog in the line of duty again, I will tell you this, I wouldn't make any statement after seeing that each word said would be twisted on a forum like this.


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> I answered your question.  I said "Nope. I'm ok with the service. Thats all I want."
> 
> No need to call me a name!



Hurt your feelings?? I'm sorry, Tommy.


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> I don't feel that this officer was mauled.  He had responded to calls at that house before due to stolen ATV's or dirt bikes, whatever, so the officer knew there was a dog there.  My father was a police officer for well over 30 years and involved in shootings, so has my husband, but I am simply stating that neither of those men, nor anyone I worked with while in law enforcement had to shot a dog.
> 
> 
> Now the lie? You were going to explain?


There was a cop from southern Maryland who posted and said he shot two.  Someone other than long.  so maybe it's different here.


----------



## otter

Who is us, tommy boy?? Were you fibbing again??


----------



## Pandora

Am I on glue? 

Have I asked what the lie was and to state how it was proven to be a lie several times and am I being ignored?

If the lie was that this dog wouldn't attack anyone and was considered docile, well that is an opinion and certainly not a lie.


----------



## tom88

cattitude said:
			
		

> Long wasn't mauled.  His skin wasn't even broken, was it?


I don't know the extent of his injuries.  I know he was treated by medical personell.  I know that I am glad he was able to stop the threat prior to really being injured.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> They said the dog would never bite anyone.  The dog bit the neighbor two years prior.



And this was what Max's mom said about that -- remember she did address this issue -- 

To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago. The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job. Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did". What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Am I on glue?
> 
> Have I asked what the lie was and to state how it was proven to be a lie several times and am I being ignored?
> 
> If the lie was that this dog wouldn't attack anyone and was considered docile, well that is an opinion and certainly not a lie.


 No.  It's a lie.  Mattia told everyone that Max would never attack anyone.  Mattia, at the time he said that new that Max HAD attacked someone.  That is the lie.  It was proven when Mrs. Mattia admitted Max had attacked the neighbor.


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't know the extent of his injuries.  I know he was treated by medical personell.  I know that I am glad he was able to stop the threat prior to really being injured.




If I had to shot a dog because it attack me and it bit me say in the ass, I would make sure a photo of my nasty ass bite was shown for all to see, screw the embarrassment.  I wouldn't want to be thought of as trigger happy.


----------



## dawn

tom88 said:
			
		

> I don't know the extent of his injuries.  I know he was treated by medical personell.  I know that I am glad he was able to stop the threat prior to really being injured.




Stop the threat, come on Tom, get serious.  There was no threat to the officer other than the officer himself.  No proof at all -- answer one question Tom-- WHY WOULDNT THE CCSO TAKE PICTURES OF THE BITE IF THERE WAS ONE-- THERE IS NO LOGICAL ANSWER AS TO WHY IN THE WORLD THEY WOULD NOT TAKE A PICTURE OF THE BITE WOUND IF IN FACT THERE WAS A BITE.  The only reason no picture was taken was because there was NO bite.


----------



## tom88

dawn said:
			
		

> And this was what Max's mom said about that -- remember she did address this issue --
> 
> To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago. The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job. Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did". What happened 2 years ago does not make what happened on May 15th justified.


 NO what happend on May 15th makes what happend on May 15th justified.  What happend two years ago proves Mattia is a liar.


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> It was proven when Mrs. Mattia admitted Max had attacked the neighbor.



It was proven?? Was she lying when she said Max attacked the neighbor?? you're not making sense, tommy.


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> NO what happend on May 15th makes what happend on May 15th justified.  What happend two years ago proves Mattia is a liar.



Are you high, Tommy?


----------



## Pandora

Dawn, 

What was the nature of the neighbor across the streets arm?  When Max grabbed his arm did he have to be treated for any injuries?


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> NO what happend on May 15th makes what happend on May 15th justified.  What happend two years ago proves Mattia is a liar.



Tom you are nuts!


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> It was proven?? Was she lying when she said Max attacked the neighbor?? you're not making sense, tommy.


 Your not paying attention.  Joe Mattia said his dog would never bite anyone.  The wife later admitted it did!


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> Your not paying attention.  Joe Mattia said his dog would never bite anyone.  The wife later admitted it did!




So what was the nature of the man across the streets injury? Was in a nip or a bite that broke the skin? 

There is a difference.  Every dog I have own has "nipped" somebody for some reason or another.


----------



## tom88

Here is the bottom line!  People much more qualified than any of you determined the officer was justified.  So there isn't a thing that any of you can do about it other than complain on this little thread.  I won!  The officer was cleared as I said he would be a long time ago!


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> Here is the bottom line!  People much more qualified than any of you determined the officer was justified.  So there isn't a thing that any of you can do about it other than complain on this little thread.  I won!  The officer was cleared as I said he would be a long time ago!




Cleared by his own people is one thing.  Cleared in the court of public opinion is another.  

And anyway, if it was so justified, why hasn't there been anything posted in the paper?

And one more thing, I have seen officer's cleared of incidents by the department and their asses sued in civil court.  

Doesn't mean a thing.  He was cleared by his peers.    And we are supposed to just say, ok.


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Cleared by his own people is one thing.  Cleared in the court of public opinion is another.
> 
> And anyway, if it was so justified, why hasn't there been anything posted in the paper?
> 
> And one more thing, I have seen officer's cleared of incidents by the department and their asses sued in civil court.
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing.  He was cleared by his peers.    And we are supposed to just say, ok.


 It was.


----------



## dawn

*Tom --*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> Your not paying attention.  Joe Mattia said his dog would never bite anyone.  The wife later admitted it did!


And this was what Max's mom said about that -- remember she did address this issue -- 


AGAIN THIS WAS A QUOTE FROM MAX'S MOM -- 

To answer you questions - We are not sure what we will do regarding a lawsuit and yes, Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago. The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job. Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did". 






If the guy across the road thought the dog was wrong why did he say he was sorry for approaching him the way he did???????     I am sure the officer is not telling the whole truth, but there is one difference between the officer and the mattias, the officer has the side of the law behind him, whether he tells the truth or not, they have ways of making a wrong a right, by not disclosing all information, but the mattias on the other hand, all their information is out in public view.  

Tom since you have police in your family, you will never see outside the box -- pity for you


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> It was.




What was?  The unanswered questions was never address.  I was mortified when I saw the blood all over that dogs leash.  I never need to look back and see that picture, for it is embedded in my mind.  Shot next to his leash.  That will just never jive with me!


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> What was?  The unanswered questions was never address.  I was mortified when I saw the blood all over that dogs leash.  I never need to look back and see that picture, for it is embedded in my mind.  Shot next to his leash.  That will just never jive with me!


 Too bad.  The cop was cleared.


----------



## Pandora

Dogs have incredible hearing.  You would have thought that dog, if off his leash, would have ran around and got 'em at the front of the house somewhere along the lines of banging on the other 2 doors.  

So, it just so happens, he got shot next to the door where he was tied up.  Ok!   Whatever you say! *coughcough* *yeahright*


It is ok Tom, I believe in real life karma.


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> My husband has been a police officer since 1990, that would be 17 years, and he has never shot a dog.
> 
> What was the lie told?  I have seen it mentioned as just a "lie" but unless you come out and say what it was and how it was proven a lie, it is heresay.


 So based on what your saying, your husband has no integrity because police officers can't police themselves and if a complaint is filed they will cover up to make themselves look better?  

Long was cleared by his internal affairs department, but you insinuated that is not valid because they cannot police themselves.  I wonder, why are you married to a man who would be involved with organizations which have no integrity. 

I understand where you come from now.  Your father being a police officer for thirty years and your husband being a police officer for 17 years and both of them obviously telling you they have no integrity because they don't have the fortitude to say when someone in their organization is wrong.

Well, that may well be the case with the members of your family, however I have reviewed the Charles County Internal Affairs cases, (they are public record) and they have found numerous officers at fault for numerous infractions, to include punishment such as termination.

Explain that?


----------



## Chasey_Lane

tom88 said:
			
		

> Explain that?


  They were found guilty/wrongful of something. :shrug:


----------



## Pandora

Spare me Tom, 

You are the one coming here gunning hard on this and have been since the jump.  All I ever stated was that I know many officers who never had to shot a dog and know that they were raised around dogs, had experience and were not IMO fearful of dogs. 

You keep saying this officer was cleared as if it is the final say, as if the civil suit is baseless, I have told you that an internal clearing of this matter means nothing to me, ramming that down my throat means absolutely nothing to me.  It is a dog and you’d be hard pressed to find that many people compassionate over the loss of an animal, especially in law enforcement.  

I don't know the officer and I vaguely know the people whose dog was shot and killed, meaning, I met them briefly, in the past, and have NO reason to have a personal involvement on either side, HOWEVER, I believe you are completely involved with the Charles County Sheriff’s Office and you have a personal agenda here and have pushed and pushed that agenda from the beginning of your presence in this thread.  

This isn’t the 1st dog this officer shot, it is the 3rd dog shot by this officer in a career that spans, 7 years?  Yet, here you are trying to convince me, and others, that Max was off his leash, roaming around, yet the pictures show Max’s blood all over his leash by the 3rd door where he would have been chained had the officer’s story been plausible that dog would have ensured confrontation at one of the other two doors.


----------



## mainman

*bump* for greyhound....


----------



## CallinAllAngels

Pandora said:
			
		

> User Name Posts
> *tom88  193 *
> dawn  127
> 88stringslouie  82
> camily  54
> FrankBama1234  51
> missperky  48
> MiMiMi  46
> dmh  33
> JesseJames  31
> itsbob  27
> u gotta love me  26
> cattitude  24
> Woodyspda  24
> pixiegirl  23
> *Pandora  22 *
> PrchJrkr  20
> ITS ME  19
> otter  16
> Ravu  16
> pingrr  15
> Mikeinsmd  15
> spicy  15
> General Lee  15
> chernmax  15
> sockgirl77  13
> madMAX  13
> calamity jane  13
> jetmonkey  11
> heavenly was  11
> protectmd  10
> trilogy  10
> smcop  9
> JohnnyReb  9
> lovinmaryland  9
> Chasey_Lane  9
> MMDad  8
> RoseRed  8
> Dork  7
> Max's Mom  7
> Coventry17  7
> Tomahawk202  5
> marybek  5
> virgovictoria  5
> Poohhunny1605  5
> Bay_Kat  5
> Speedy70  5
> mainman  4
> river rat  4
> Lexib_  3
> desertrat  3
> BillnChristi  3
> dems4me  3
> Pete  3
> Kain99  3
> donbarzini  3
> Charles  3
> krazd_kat  2
> oldnavy  2
> Lenny  2
> Hokieman  2
> BadGirl  2
> Airgasm  2
> Merlin99  2
> SoMDMama82  2
> sparkyaclown  2
> bohman  2
> Tinkerbell  2
> Richard Cranium  2
> Nucklesack  2
> (((echo)))  2
> huntr1  2
> Hello6  2
> Booboo3604  2
> allan1058  2
> christy217  2
> BuddyLee  1
> jessie_101  1
> willie  1
> dhartmann_2004  1
> RadioPatrol  1
> Lilypad  1
> spike2763  1
> Inkpen  1
> Steve  1
> aanderson  1
> Nickel  1
> Vince  1
> kimmiekay98  1
> FireBrand  1
> tes218  1
> 2ballscrewball  1
> Ponytail  1
> Ken King  1
> LPGM2003  1
> OldHillcrestGuy  1
> Bustem' Down  1
> Baywatchv8  1
> SoMDGirl42  1
> p3photogal  1
> greyhound  1
> bucky md  1
> SLIM  1
> sgt_turmoil  1
> SerenitStables  1
> vraiblonde  1
> mv_princess  1
> toogie  1
> Wilona  1
> AndyMarquisLIVE  1
> TexasSunflower  1
> tagryn  1
> Kyle  1
> vanbells  1
> kalmd  1
> Wileeone  1
> Christy  1
> Amanda53772  1
> kom526  1
> Mark_Disfree  1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greyhound - 0



I think you have too much time on your hands.


----------



## Pandora

CallinAllAngels said:
			
		

> I think you have too much time on your hands.




Copy, cut and paste   I didn't sit down and list that out! Shesh!


----------



## CallinAllAngels

Pandora said:
			
		

> Copy, cut and paste   I didn't sit down and list that out! Shesh!



Oh thank goodness, I thought you might be very diligent in getting that information posted.


----------



## greyhound

mainman said:
			
		

> *bump* for greyhound....



Did you take the poll?


----------



## JohnnyReb

Pandora said:
			
		

> Spare me Tom,
> 
> You are the one coming here gunning hard on this and have been since the jump.  All I ever stated was that I know many officers who never had to shot a dog and know that they were raised around dogs, had experience and were not IMO fearful of dogs.
> 
> This isn’t the 1st dog this officer shot, it is the 3rd dog shot by this officer in a career that spans, 7 years?



What about all of the defenseless deer the police shoot?    

Many officer's have not had to shoot dogs because they have not been put in a position where they had to!  Many officer's will go there entire career without discharging their weapon in the line of duty, others will face lethal force situations numerous times in their career.

It all boils down to the totality of the circumstances present.  You are just looking at "OH MY GO HE KILLED 2 OTHER DOGS! HE IS A DOG MURDERER!"  

If you are going to continue to imply that he just goes around and shoots dogs because he is scared of dogs, you will need to prove that the prior two were not justified.   Unless you can do that, your whole arguement is hogwash.  

The numbers mean nothing to me because each seperate incident was justified.


You uninformed opinion does not amount to a hill of beans, because ultimately it does not matter.  He was justifed.

CCSO IA has no problems with finding their members at fault in incidents either...


----------



## chernmax

Damn, this thread still going!!!  

Make that 16...


----------



## greyhound

chernmax said:
			
		

> Damn, this thread still going!!!
> 
> Make that 16...



Did you vote?

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=108452


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Spare me Tom,
> 
> You are the one coming here gunning hard on this and have been since the jump.  All I ever stated was that I know many officers who never had to shot a dog and know that they were raised around dogs, had experience and were not IMO fearful of dogs.
> 
> You keep saying this officer was cleared as if it is the final say, as if the civil suit is baseless, I have told you that an internal clearing of this matter means nothing to me, ramming that down my throat means absolutely nothing to me.  It is a dog and you’d be hard pressed to find that many people compassionate over the loss of an animal, especially in law enforcement.
> 
> I don't know the officer and I vaguely know the people whose dog was shot and killed, meaning, I met them briefly, in the past, and have NO reason to have a personal involvement on either side, HOWEVER, I believe you are completely involved with the Charles County Sheriff’s Office and you have a personal agenda here and have pushed and pushed that agenda from the beginning of your presence in this thread.
> 
> This isn’t the 1st dog this officer shot, it is the 3rd dog shot by this officer in a career that spans, 7 years?  Yet, here you are trying to convince me, and others, that Max was off his leash, roaming around, yet the pictures show Max’s blood all over his leash by the 3rd door where he would have been chained had the officer’s story been plausible that dog would have ensured confrontation at one of the other two doors.


 First, you have said numerous things other than "I know many officers who never had to shot a dog".  Second, believe what you like, however I am no more involved with the Charles County Sheriff's Dept. than I am with the Calvert County Sheriff's Dept. or St. Mary's.  I know several officers with Charles County but do not work there.

What I have been saying since I found out, is this officer was treated for injuries.  Minor, major I don't care.  The dog attacked him.  He was cleared.  Mattia lied.  No civil suit has been filed, although Mattia has spoken to several lawyers, nobody will take the case because it's a looser!  So there is not going to be any other court except for the rantings of the over emotional irrational people in this thread!


----------



## u gotta love me

JohnnyReb said:
			
		

> What about all of the defenseless deer the police shoot?
> 
> Many officer's have not had to shoot dogs because they have not been put in a position where they had to!  Many officer's will go there entire career without discharging their weapon in the line of duty, others will face lethal force situations numerous times in their career.
> 
> It all boils down to the totality of the circumstances present.  You are just looking at "OH MY GO HE KILLED 2 OTHER DOGS! HE IS A DOG MURDERER!"
> 
> If you are going to continue to imply that he just goes around and shoots dogs because he is scared of dogs, you will need to prove that the prior two were not justified.   Unless you can do that, your whole arguement is hogwash.
> 
> The numbers mean nothing to me because each seperate incident was justified.
> 
> 
> You uninformed opinion does not amount to a hill of beans, because ultimately it does not matter.  He was justifed.
> 
> CCSO IA has no problems with finding their members at fault in incidents either...



defenseless deer, the only deer that I have known the police to shoot are deer that have been hit by cars and are in pain.   There is no officer that has had to shoot a deer while serving a warrant.   How can you prove the prior two instances were not justified when you can not get a copy of the police report unless you have the report number or the person making the complaint, you can not go off the officers name to pull up police reports, so you information can be obtained about the two prior instances for anyone to find the holes that reek through those stories as well.

The only uninformed opinions I have noted on this board are police suck ups that see that this officer has shot and killed three dogs on three seperate instances and see no wrong doing in any of the instances.  He was cleared by internal affairs, well Tom, since you indicate that it is public records, please enlighten us and tell us where to locate these such reports, I would love to see the investigation that was done on this case.  IMO NOTHING AT ALL, as there are no pictures to validate the proof of the alledge bite.  Being an officer, you should be trained to take photographs of evidence, so either there was no bite wound or the CCSO should be retrained and if that is the case, if I was a lawyer defending someone that the CCSO was bringing evidence against, I surely would question the validity of the evidence, since they themselves cant preserve evidence to protect their own.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> defenseless deer, the only deer that I have known the police to shoot are deer that have been hit by cars and are in pain.   There is no officer that has had to shoot a deer while serving a warrant.   How can you prove the prior two instances were not justified when you can not get a copy of the police report unless you have the report number or the person making the complaint, you can not go off the officers name to pull up police reports, so you information can be obtained about the two prior instances for anyone to find the holes that reek through those stories as well.
> 
> The only uninformed opinions I have noted on this board are police suck ups that see that this officer has shot and killed three dogs on three seperate instances and see no wrong doing in any of the instances.  He was cleared by internal affairs, well Tom, since you indicate that it is public records, please enlighten us and tell us where to locate these such reports, I would love to see the investigation that was done on this case.  IMO NOTHING AT ALL, as there are no pictures to validate the proof of the alledge bite.  Being an officer, you should be trained to take photographs of evidence, so either there was no bite wound or the CCSO should be retrained and if that is the case, if I was a lawyer defending someone that the CCSO was bringing evidence against, I surely would question the validity of the evidence, since they themselves cant preserve evidence to protect their own.


 I'm not an officer, so there for do not require additional training.  For your information you may file a freedom of information request and obtain any police reports.  As far as the attorney wanting evidence, the burden of proof is on the complainant, Ie; the Mattias, so they would need to bring forth evidence the officer was wrong.

Why is it no lawyer will take the Mattia's case?  Hmmm.  Perhaps there is no case amongst rational people.  Perhaps it is just those thinking with their emotions who were given false information in the beggining and cannot use logic to see they were lied to in order to create a false hysteria!


----------



## Pandora

Pandora said:
			
		

> This isn’t the 1st dog this officer shot, it is the 3rd dog shot by this officer in a career that spans, 7 years?  Yet, here *you are trying to convince me, and others, that Max was off his leash, roaming around, yet the pictures show Max’s blood all over his leash by the 3rd door where he would have been chained had the officer’s story been plausible that dog would have ensured confrontation at one of the other two doors*.




  I argued and argued and asked the same question over and over again, to the point that I am tired of typing the same vomit.  You expect me to wrap logic around something that doesn't even sound one bit logical to me.  

It doesn’t matter about anything else.  My comments about officers going their careers never shooting a dog or that I worked in law enforcement and at no time, did any of the officers on my shift have to shot a dog.  None of those things matter at all because they are what I have seen and from my opinion.  But the one thing that does matter is simply that you are expecting me to wrap logic around a situation that has been described to the point of nausea, when I (and others) cannot rationalize it that way.  

Just as I have quoted above.... 

One last thing, I sincerely hope the police departments will take a long look at the way they handle dogs on property in the future.


----------



## tom88

Let me ask this question.  Is it possible that Joe Mattia staged the photo's he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad?


----------



## greyhound




----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> Let me ask this question.  Is it possible that Joe Mattia staged the photo's he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad?


----------



## chernmax

I heard a rumor that Tom88 is the officer who shot the dog...


----------



## PrchJrkr

chernmax said:
			
		

> I heard a rumor that Tom88 is the officer who shot the dog...



I wish he'd shoot this effin thread!


----------



## greyhound

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> I wish he'd shoot this effin thread!


----------



## OldHillcrestGuy

I think Deputy Long just got promoted to Corporal.


----------



## tom88

OldHillcrestGuy said:
			
		

> I think Deputy Long just got promoted to Corporal.


 Thats great!  Further proof that he is an outstanding police officer who should be rewarded for his good work!


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Thats great!  Further proof that he is an outstanding police officer who should be rewarded for his good work!



Waste of life


----------



## madMAX

chernmax said:
			
		

> I heard a rumor that Tom88 is the officer who shot the dog...




Could be right, he seems to be the biggest supporter.


----------



## tom88

I doubt biggest supporter, but agree biggest supporter here!  Thanks, I like to stand up for what is maybe not popular, but what is definately right!


----------



## Merlin99

tom88 said:
			
		

> I doubt biggest supporter, but agree biggest supporter here!  Thanks, I like to stand up for what is maybe not popular, but what is definately right!


This sounds like you're quoting JPC, what's your stance on child support.


----------



## tom88

Merlin99 said:
			
		

> This sounds like you're quoting JPC, what's your stance on child support.


 My stance is if the scum bag son would have lived up to his responsiblity and paid his child support, the dog would be alive and the reputation of this officer would be intact!


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> My stance is if the scum bag son would have lived up to his responsiblity and paid his child support, the dog would be alive and the reputation of this officer would be intact!




From what I understand there was already a bad reputation in full force.


----------



## Tomahawk202

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Just goes to show that all of the rumors I have heard about CCSO is true, they love mediocrity, and can you believe this cop was number 2 on the corporal's list?



 Man, if he just made Cpl ( I'll find out tomm ) then this agency is a disgrace. Funny how their IA will investigate and hang some cops out to dry, and protect the holy hell out of their own......LMAO CCSO, what a joke!


----------



## Tomahawk202

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> From what I understand there was already a bad reputation in full force.




You got that right brother......


----------



## tom88

It's funny how nobody has answered this question.  "Let me ask this question. Is it possible that Joe Mattia staged the photo's he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad?"


----------



## greyhound

tom88 said:
			
		

> My stance is if the scum bag son would have lived up to his responsiblity and paid his child support, the dog would be alive and the reputation of this officer would be intact!



Tom....

You should have just left it at this post.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> It's funny how nobody has answered this question.  "Let me ask this question. Is it possible that Joe Mattia staged the photo's he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad?"




You know only an azzhole like you would think that.   This man had just had his best friend shot and killed right outside his door and the likes of you would come up with something stupid like that.  

I will answer that question for you.   No, I dont think it is possible that JOe Mattia would stage the photos he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad.  I dont think he went and got ketchup and poured in on the dogs leash to make it appear to look like blood, and no I dont think he shot and blew apart the dogs collar to make it look the cop had shot it off the dog and I will not even justify any further of answering your lack of common sense question.

Numbnuts what kind of sick in the head person are you.


----------



## u gotta love me

*Toms Response To The Boy That Was Killed By The Stray Bullet Meant For The Snake --*



			
				tom88 said:
			
		

> This is a horrible tragedy, and nothing could be said to make the boy whole again.  I feel horrible for the boys family as well as the officer who made this horrible mistake.  I am sure he didn't wake up that day, put his uniform on and hope to take the life of a five year old boy.




TOM YOU ARE THE BIGGEST SUCK UP TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT -- 

YOUR RESPONSE TO THE 5 YEAR OLD BOY THAT WAS SHOT BY THE COP THAT TRIED TO KILL THE SNAKE IS JUST PATHETIC

YOUR STANCE ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE POLICE MURDERING WHETHER IT BE HUMAN OR ANIMAL, SEEMS TO BE THE SAME LACK OF COMMON SENSE ANSWER --

OH WELL I AM SURE THE OFFICER DIDN'T WAKE UP THAT DAY AND SAY TODAY I WILL KILL A DOG OR TODAY I WILL KILL A CHILD -- DO YOU JUST NOT GET IT TOM, THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS -- AND THE OBVIOUSLY LACK SOMETHING, WHAT KIND OF FRICKEN MORON ARE YOU TOM?


----------



## Pandora

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> You know only an azzhole like you would think that.   This man had just had his best friend shot and killed right outside his door and the likes of you would come up with something stupid like that.
> 
> I will answer that question for you.   No, I dont think it is possible that JOe Mattia would stage the photos he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad.  I dont think he went and got ketchup and poured in on the dogs leash to make it appear to look like blood, and no I dont think he shot and blew apart the dogs collar to make it look the cop had shot it off the dog and I will not even justify any further of answering your lack of common sense question.
> 
> Numbnuts what kind of sick in the head person are you.




Ahhh but you can sense the doubt by posting such a question that even *TOM* thinks the pictures show a dead dog by the 3rd door where he was supposedly free and off his chain, blood splattered on his chain, as something that cast a shadow of doubt on this officer's story.  

For him to even ask such a question says a great deal!  It is all a plot.  Max's owner might have staged those pictures.  

Beyond ridiculous.


----------



## ITS ME

greyhound said:
			
		

> Tom....
> 
> You should have just left it at this post.




 

because you are really showing just how bright of an individual you really are.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> TOM YOU ARE THE BIGGEST SUCK UP TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT --
> 
> YOUR RESPONSE TO THE 5 YEAR OLD BOY THAT WAS SHOT BY THE COP THAT TRIED TO KILL THE SNAKE IS JUST PATHETIC
> 
> YOUR STANCE ON EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE POLICE MURDERING WHETHER IT BE HUMAN OR ANIMAL, SEEMS TO BE THE SAME LACK OF COMMON SENSE ANSWER --
> 
> OH WELL I AM SURE THE OFFICER DIDN'T WAKE UP THAT DAY AND SAY TODAY I WILL KILL A DOG OR TODAY I WILL KILL A CHILD -- DO YOU JUST NOT GET IT TOM, THESE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRAINED PROFESSIONALS -- AND THE OBVIOUSLY LACK SOMETHING, WHAT KIND OF FRICKEN MORON ARE YOU TOM?


 I think it's a horrible tragedy for everyone involved with the five year old!  Do you disagree with that?  The officer made a horrible and traggic mistake!  I feel for the family of the dead child mostly, but also for the officer who has to live with this mistake!

What type of cold and insensitive person are you that you can't see the whole human tragedy here?


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Ahhh but you can sense the doubt by posting such a question that even *TOM* thinks the pictures show a dead dog by the 3rd door where he was supposedly free and off his chain, blood splattered on his chain, as something that cast a shadow of doubt on this officer's story.
> 
> For him to even ask such a question says a great deal!  It is all a plot.  Max's owner might have staged those pictures.
> 
> Beyond ridiculous.


 No, just proving that none of you can be impartial enough to explore other possiblities of a person who's side your on doing something wrong.  Even though this person has already displayed the traits of a person who might do this.  Remember, he is the only person we can clearly point to and say he lied in this!  That fact is irrefutable!


----------



## Tomahawk202

tom88 said:
			
		

> It's funny how nobody has answered this question.  "Let me ask this question. Is it possible that Joe Mattia staged the photo's he took of the crime scene to make the police look bad?"



Ok, I will answer your question for you. " Is it possible?" Well, hell yeah, anything is possible. A submarine could fall out the sky tomm, and land on my car, the sun could implode and really give me superman like powers, and Halle Berry is gonna come over tonight, at the delight of my wife, and sit on my pizzle!   
Hell, ANYTHING is possible, moron. Now, " IS IT PROBABLE? " That's the question you should be asking. tisk, tisk, tisk, ....you should take come college courses or something.   

 " Ya can't fix stupid " - Ron White.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> I think it's a horrible tragedy for everyone involved with the five year old!  Do you disagree with that?  The officer made a horrible and traggic mistake!  I feel for the family of the dead child mostly, but also for the officer who has to live with this mistake!
> 
> What type of cold and insensitive person are you that you can't see the whole human tragedy here?





Are you a SICKO?????????  

I was pointing out the fact that you, being the cold person you are -- has the same comment everytime a police officer is involved in a killing --

YOU SAY EACH AND EVERY TIME SO FAR

WELL I AM SURE THE OFFICER DIDNT WAKE UP THAT MORNING AND SAY -- TODAY I AM GOING TO KILL-- 

you are a nutcase.  ofcourse i see the tragedy, i think you are the one that lacks the sight of it.   

you have those stupid remarks about the officer not waking up that day and meaning to kill -- not me.  I actually have a heart and i feel that although an officer might feel bad for what he has done, the family of who or what was murdered feels worse and I dont think you comments are appropriate.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> No, just proving that none of you can be impartial enough to explore other possiblities of a person who's side your on doing something wrong.  Even though this person has already displayed the traits of a person who might do this.  Remember, he is the only person we can clearly point to and say he lied in this!  That fact is irrefutable!




umm, no pictures were taken to prove that the officer was telling the truth --


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> Are you a SICKO?????????
> 
> I was pointing out the fact that you, being the cold person you are -- has the same comment everytime a police officer is involved in a killing --
> 
> YOU SAY EACH AND EVERY TIME SO FAR
> 
> WELL I AM SURE THE OFFICER DIDNT WAKE UP THAT MORNING AND SAY -- TODAY I AM GOING TO KILL--
> 
> you are a nutcase.  ofcourse i see the tragedy, i think you are the one that lacks the sight of it.
> 
> you have those stupid remarks about the officer not waking up that day and meaning to kill -- not me.  I actually have a heart and i feel that although an officer might feel bad for what he has done, the family of who or what was murdered feels worse and I dont think you comments are appropriate.


 The difference is while I see compassion for all sides, you have only venom in your heart for the police officer, pointing out his obvious mistake! (your earlier comment about him being trained)  I expressed concern and empathy for the child, however you choose to ignore that and concentrate on the part where I showed empathy for the police officer.  You truly are a cold hearted person, when it comes to dealing with the human element!


----------



## Tomahawk202

tom88 said:
			
		

> I think it's a horrible tragedy for everyone involved with the five year old!  Do you disagree with that?  The officer made a horrible and traggic mistake!  I feel for the family of the dead child mostly, but also for the officer who has to live with this mistake!



Ok folks, if I were a cop ( and I am ) and I played around ( in the course of my duty or not ) and killed a five year old child, I would walk right up to my boss, pull my badge off my chest, un-holster and empty my mag, turn my pistol around, and hand it to him. " Sir, my resignation is effective immediately." 

I do NOT have a conscious , but that has never stopped me from seeing the difference between right and wrong. My integrity will never be questioned.


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> The difference is while I see compassion for all sides, you have only venom in your heart for the police officer, pointing out his obvious mistake! (your earlier comment about him being trained)  I expressed concern and empathy for the child, however you choose to ignore that and concentrate on the part where I showed empathy for the police officer.  You truly are a cold hearted person, when it comes to dealing with the human element!




I refuse to go back and forth with you on that comment -- you could never be any more wrong than you are and I will not allow you to p*ss me off anymore than you already have!


----------



## tom88

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Ok folks, if I were a cop ( and I am ) and I played around ( in the course of my duty or not ) and killed a five year old child, I would walk right up to my boss, pull my badge off my chest, un-holster and empty my mag, turn my pistol around, and hand it to him. " Sir, my resignation is effective immediately."
> 
> I do NOT have a conscious , but that has never stopped me from seeing the difference between right and wrong. My integrity will never be questioned.


 Well I hope, if you were playing around, and killed a five year old child, your boss would take your gun, resignation, and then place you in custody arresting you for manslaughter!


----------



## kiddosmama

I am so sorry for your family's pain.  I would definately lawyer up!  It is a case that needs to be heard.  Sounds like the cop is a hot head!


----------



## 88stringslouie

I see where the "Officer" settled with his credit union.

I guess Internal affairs can't get everything to "go away".


----------



## 88stringslouie

I bet that Officer Friendly "Long" was ecstatic to see that Michael Vick was indicted for participating in brutal dog fighting.  
I sure hope that this thread goes on at least as long as the Vick case is under public scrutiny.  After reading all of the posts by Mr. Tom88, he's either a family member of Officer "Friendly" or is Officer Friendly.

Or, just another guilt-ridden "dog murderer".


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> I bet that Officer Friendly "Long" was ecstatic to see that Michael Vick was indicted for participating in brutal dog fighting.
> I sure hope that this thread goes on at least as long as the Vick case is under public scrutiny.  After reading all of the posts by Mr. Tom88, he's either a family member of Officer "Friendly" or is Officer Friendly.
> 
> Or, just another guilt-ridden "dog murderer".


 Nope, have never killed a dog.  Have no idea who this Long is, and none of my family know who this Long is.  I know several Police Officers in the tri-county area due to my business, and am well versed with the law.  I also know several prosecutors and defense attorneys, as well as civil attorneys and I know this!  Nobody is taking a tort case for the Mattias because this is a looser of a case.  No prosecutor is seeking an indictment against Long, because he did nothing wrong!  

So all you people can keep complaining, but it does you no good what so ever, other than to entertain me and allow me to keep proving you wrong!

I will have the last word!!!  hahahhahahhaha


----------



## jetmonkey

I like this thread. Keeps a lot of the tards busy in one place


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Nope, have never killed a dog.  Have no idea who this Long is, and none of my family know who this Long is.  I know several Police Officers in the tri-county area due to my business, and am well versed with the law.  I also know several prosecutors and defense attorneys, as well as civil attorneys and I know this!  Nobody is taking a tort case for the Mattias because this is a looser of a case.  No prosecutor is seeking an indictment against Long, because he did nothing wrong!
> 
> So all you people can keep complaining, but it does you no good what so ever, other than to entertain me and allow me to keep proving you wrong!
> 
> I will have the last word!!!  hahahhahahhaha



I thought you said you worked on base???


----------



## dmh

Charles County officer ... 08-08-2007 02:55 PM You bark just as much as Max USED to!   



I wish I knew who to credit for the karma they give me.  anyone want to take credit for this one?


----------



## greyhound

Ohhhhhhhhh  ....

Just when I thought this thread had went away for the day!!!!!!!!


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Nope, have never killed a dog.  Have no idea who this Long is, and none of my family know who this Long is.  I know several Police Officers in the tri-county area due to my business, and am well versed with the law.  I also know several prosecutors and defense attorneys, as well as civil attorneys and I know this!  Nobody is taking a tort case for the Mattias because this is a looser of a case.  No prosecutor is seeking an indictment against Long, because he did nothing wrong!
> 
> So all you people can keep complaining, but it does you no good what so ever, other than to entertain me and allow me to keep proving you wrong!
> 
> I will have the last word!!!  hahahhahahhaha



Nothing personal, but for someone who claims to know a lot of important and educated people, you sure as hell are a poor speller, have no grammatical skill, and are obviously lying through your teeth.  It's nice to know that you know, you know, you know, you know (to the n'th degree)        

§ 11-505. When dog killing permitted***************

§ 11-506. Deemed personal property***************

It's such a damned shame that a lawsuit is not put forth with accompanying evidence in this case.  It's a shame that the Mattias were not home at the time, and were not armed to protect their "personal property", being, Max.

We know the type of cop that kills 3 dogs in a matter of 7 years.  Maybe this can be a positive thing, knowing that all decent gun owners will be ready when some trigger-happy cop comes onto their property and shoots their dog.

If a cop looks to serve a warrant on me, being the "scum" that Mr. Tom88 speaks of, and I'm hiding in a bush just waiting for this cop to come around searching for me when I don't answer the front door, and shoots the crap out of my dog (of course, waiting in the wings for the cop to walk around the back of my house, then jumping the cop and ripping his leg to shreds), he better sure as hell shoot fast and furiously, as I WILL DEFEND MY PROPERTY per my 2nd amendment rights.

I think Mr. Tom88 blow hard is stuffed up the dept's hind end so far that it would take a winch from a tow-truck company to pull him out.  Of course this is my opinion, just as it was for the Founding Fathers to have the foresight to know that WE NEED A SECOND AMENDMENT!

Being the legal scholar that he is, as well as knowing everyone and everything about the Maryland Court System, it's nice to have his scholarly advice shared profusely on the forum.  I hope that Mr. Coffey is monitoring the forum, noting the type of people defending this cop and the veracity of the people demanding justice in this case.

I also know that he is enjoying his tenure as an elected official.  It is my hope that he finds the decency to release all the evidence in this case.  Yes, some Mr. Tom88s will claim that there is no evidence, but we'll see.  Time will tell.

God Bless all the brave women and men of the police force that protect us in this wild and crazy Southern, Md.  God forsake cops that disgrace their badge, sworn oath of office, and waste our taxpayer money.


----------



## ITS ME

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Nothing personal, but for someone who claims to know a lot of important and educated people, you sure as hell are a poor speller, have no grammatical skill, and are obviously lying through your teeth.  It's nice to know that you know, you know, you know, you know (to the n'th degree)
> 
> § 11-505. When dog killing permitted***************
> 
> § 11-506. Deemed personal property***************
> 
> It's such a damned shame that a lawsuit is not put forth with accompanying evidence in this case.  It's a shame that the Mattias were not home at the time, and were not armed to protect their "personal property", being, Max.
> 
> We know the type of cop that kills 3 dogs in a matter of 7 years.  Maybe this can be a positive thing, knowing that all decent gun owners will be ready when some trigger-happy cop comes onto their property and shoots their dog.
> 
> If a cop looks to serve a warrant on me, being the "scum" that Mr. Tom88 speaks of, and I'm hiding in a bush just waiting for this cop to come around searching for me when I don't answer the front door, and shoots the crap out of my dog (of course, waiting in the wings for the cop to walk around the back of my house, then jumping the cop and ripping his leg to shreds), he better sure as hell shoot fast and furiously, as I WILL DEFEND MY PROPERTY per my 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> I think Mr. Tom88 blow hard is stuffed up the dept's hind end so far that it would take a winch from a tow-truck company to pull him out.  Of course this is my opinion, just as it was for the Founding Fathers to have the foresight to know that WE NEED A SECOND AMENDMENT!
> 
> Being the legal scholar that he is, as well as knowing everyone and everything about the Maryland Court System, it's nice to have his scholarly advice shared profusely on the forum.  I hope that Mr. Coffey is monitoring the forum, noting the type of people defending this cop and the veracity of the people demanding justice in this case.
> 
> I also know that he is enjoying his tenure as an elected official.  It is my hope that he finds the decency to release all the evidence in this case.  Yes, some Mr. Tom88s will claim that there is no evidence, but we'll see.  Time will tell.
> 
> God Bless all the brave women and men of the police force that protect us in this wild and crazy Southern, Md.  God forsake cops that disgrace their badge, sworn oath of office, and waste our taxpayer money.




 Thanks Louie, my opinion as well


----------



## ITS ME

Charles County officer ... 08-09-2007 09:46 AM Opinions are like azzholes, and your's definitely stinks  PJ   

Thanks PJ,


----------



## PrchJrkr

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 08-09-2007 09:46 AM Opinions are like azzholes, and your's definitely stinks  PJ
> 
> Thanks PJ,



You're quite welcome!


----------



## greyhound

How many of you that have posted in this thread also posted and showed concern for the missing boy last night............


----------



## camily

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 08-09-2007 09:46 AM Opinions are like azzholes, and your's definitely stinks  PJ
> 
> Thanks PJ,


----------



## camily

madMAX said:
			
		

> I thought about it.


Ass.


----------



## PrchJrkr

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> You're quite welcome!



Charles County officer ... 08-10-2007 09:10 AM jerk 
Charles County officer ... 08-10-2007 08:49 AM PJ, you suck 

I must've touched a nerve. I know you asshats will never have the balls to sign your karma, but for Christ's sake, please come up with something more intelligent to say.


----------



## Dork

Has this thread set a record yet?


----------



## Tomahawk202

jetmonkey said:
			
		

> I like this thread. Keeps a lot of the tards busy in one place



And you're right along in here with us....moron.


----------



## Tomahawk202

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Nothing personal, but for someone who claims to know a lot of important and educated people, you sure as hell are a poor speller, have no grammatical skill, and are obviously lying through your teeth.  It's nice to know that you know, you know, you know, you know (to the n'th degree)
> 
> § 11-505. When dog killing permitted***************
> 
> § 11-506. Deemed personal property***************
> 
> It's such a damned shame that a lawsuit is not put forth with accompanying evidence in this case.  It's a shame that the Mattias were not home at the time, and were not armed to protect their "personal property", being, Max.
> 
> We know the type of cop that kills 3 dogs in a matter of 7 years.  Maybe this can be a positive thing, knowing that all decent gun owners will be ready when some trigger-happy cop comes onto their property and shoots their dog.
> 
> If a cop looks to serve a warrant on me, being the "scum" that Mr. Tom88 speaks of, and I'm hiding in a bush just waiting for this cop to come around searching for me when I don't answer the front door, and shoots the crap out of my dog (of course, waiting in the wings for the cop to walk around the back of my house, then jumping the cop and ripping his leg to shreds), he better sure as hell shoot fast and furiously, as I WILL DEFEND MY PROPERTY per my 2nd amendment rights.
> 
> I think Mr. Tom88 blow hard is stuffed up the dept's hind end so far that it would take a winch from a tow-truck company to pull him out.  Of course this is my opinion, just as it was for the Founding Fathers to have the foresight to know that WE NEED A SECOND AMENDMENT!
> 
> Being the legal scholar that he is, as well as knowing everyone and everything about the Maryland Court System, it's nice to have his scholarly advice shared profusely on the forum.  I hope that Mr. Coffey is monitoring the forum, noting the type of people defending this cop and the veracity of the people demanding justice in this case.
> 
> I also know that he is enjoying his tenure as an elected official.  It is my hope that he finds the decency to release all the evidence in this case.  Yes, some Mr. Tom88s will claim that there is no evidence, but we'll see.  Time will tell.
> 
> God Bless all the brave women and men of the police force that protect us in this wild and crazy Southern, Md.  God forsake cops that disgrace their badge, sworn oath of office, and waste our taxpayer money.



I agree with and respect your opinion. Although a large majority of the cops that work for Mr. Coffey are MORONS, not all of them are, so we appreciate your recognition of our hard work. BUT, there should be a lawsuit, and Long ( as much as I like him ) should be reprimanded.


----------



## u gotta love me

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I agree with and respect your opinion. Although a large majority of the cops that work for Mr. Coffey are MORONS, not all of them are, so we appreciate your recognition of our hard work. BUT, there should be a lawsuit, and Long ( as much as I like him ) should be reprimanded.





enough said -- thank you!!!!!!!


----------



## vraiblonde

I can't believe, with all that's going on in the world, you all are still talking about this.


----------



## Tomahawk202

vraiblonde said:
			
		

> I can't believe, with all that's going on in the world, you all are still talking about this.





I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on this......


----------



## greyhound

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on this......



I Can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on her comment.......


----------



## Tomahawk202

greyhound said:
			
		

> I Can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on her comment.......



I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, that you let me do that to you last night, even after everyone else I have asked, told me no!


----------



## vraiblonde

greyhound said:
			
		

> I Can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on her comment.......


And I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, you are still here, commenting on him commenting on me commenting on this thread.

It's crazy, I tell ya


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, that you let me do that to you last night, even after everyone else I have asked, told me no!


Wow!! When do you graduate 8th grade?


----------



## greyhound

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, that you let me do that to you last night, even after everyone else I have asked, told me no!



I think I'm going to vomit....


----------



## Mikeinsmd

greyhound said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to vomit....


This is what happens when parents let immature lil kids on the computer.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I can't believe, with all that is going on in the world, that you let me do that to you last night, even after everyone else I have asked, told me no!


Got your wrist slapped and had some posts pulled I see huh hotshot...


----------



## Lenny

Is this thread going for a record?


----------



## GopherM

Lenny said:
			
		

> Is this thread going for a record?


 
 The true Never Ending Story.  Just waiting for that big, long dog to go flying past the front of my house with that little kid sitting on his head.


----------



## ITS ME

Lenny said:
			
		

> Is this thread going for a record?



Nope, just pointing out the fact that there is an officer with a trigger happy finger still working.


----------



## Tomahawk202

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Got your wrist slapped and had some posts pulled I see huh hotshot...



 	Charles County officer ...  	08-11-2007 03:09 PM  	Do you spit or swallow? Oh I heard you swallow!!  Go away little boy. You're way out of your league!!   Mike (again) 


Mike, you are a joke. LOL Do yourself a favor, anytime you can manage to convey a logical thought, please feel free to come back and drop me a line. Until then, beat it, would ya? ( yawns )


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ...  	08-11-2007 03:09 PM  	Do you spit or swallow? Oh I heard you swallow!!  Go away little boy. You're way out of your league!!   Mike (again)
> 
> 
> Mike, you are a joke. LOL Do yourself a favor, anytime you can manage to convey a logical thought, please feel free to come back and drop me a line. Until then, beat it, would ya? ( yawns )


What no wife jokes??  That all ya got??    er......a...... I mean


----------



## Tomahawk202

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> This is what happens when parents let immature lil kids on the computer.




I might have an actual wife joke for ya, but I know you don't like women.......   booya!!!

And I'm the one immature? LOL


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Nope, just pointing out the fact that there is an officer with a trigger happy finger still working.


 Not only is this deserved officer still working, but he has rightly been promoted.  Despite all of you accusing him of doing wrong.  He did the right thing then, and continues to serve the community bravely!


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> enough said -- thank you!!!!!!!


 You can't reprimand someone who has been investigated and cleared from any wrong doing!


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> I would like to see that investigation.  They cant even take pictures of the alledge bite wound, and you have confidence that they would investigate fairly?    I dont think so.


 Your not entitled to see the investigation, and it's none of your business.  As I have said many many times, if this guy did something wrong, don't you think, as angry as the dog owner is, he would have sued by now?  The reason he hasn't, is because no attorney will take the case because the officer was correct in the action he took.  Dumb AZZ!


----------



## OldHillcrestGuy

ITS ME said:
			
		

> he was not promoted dumb azz!



   You might want to check with Tomahawk, he seems to know the officer, but I think he was promoted.


----------



## SouthernMdRocks

ITS ME said:
			
		

> AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT FILED A LAW SUIT?   DONT THINK YOU DO KNOW, NOW DO YOU??????   Do you think it would make the papers if they filed a suit?  AZZHOLE?  Nope, I dont think it would make the papers, so for all you know, they have filed suit!!!!!!!!



I thought when someone filed suit, it is public knowledge and can be found at the court house clerks office..


----------



## madMAX

SouthernMdRocks said:
			
		

> I thought when someone filed suit, it is public knowledge and can be found at the court house clerks office..




It is, but I doubt Tom88 has checked.


----------



## BS Gal

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was, 
and they'll continue posting here forever just because, 

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was, 
and they'll continue posting here forever just because,

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was, 
and they'll continue posting here forever just because,

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was, 
and they'll continue posting here forever just because,

This is the thread that never ends.
It goes on and on my friends.
Someone started posting it not knowing what it was, 
and they'll continue posting here forever just because,


----------



## PrchJrkr

BS Gal said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever just because,
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever just because,
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever just because,
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever just because,
> 
> This is the thread that never ends.
> It goes on and on my friends.
> Someone started posting it not knowing what it was,
> and they'll continue posting here forever just because,


----------



## madMAX

OldHillcrestGuy said:
			
		

> You might want to check with Tomahawk, he seems to know the officer, but I think he was promoted.




Tomahawk -- do you know?


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THEY HAVE NOT FILED A LAW SUIT?   DONT THINK YOU DO KNOW, NOW DO YOU??????   Do you think it would make the papers if they filed a suit?  AZZHOLE?  Nope, I dont think it would make the papers, so for all you know, they have filed suit!!!!!!!!


 Yes, I do know.  It is easy to find if someone has filed suit in Maryland.  Just check the Maryland Judiciary site and it will tell you.  So, you simpleton, check your facts.  You may call me whatever names you choose, but the FACT is, this guy did nothing wrong, and will serve no consequences due to your whining and crying about him.
I again tell all of you, this is wasted space, I win this argument because you are all wrong!  No prosecution, no lawsuit, no found wrong by his Internal Affairs!


----------



## PrchJrkr

tom88 said:
			
		

> Yes, I do know.  It is easy to find if someone has filed suit in Maryland.  Just check the Maryland Judiciary site and it will tell you.  So, you simpleton, check your facts.  You may call me whatever names you choose, but the FACT is, this guy did nothing wrong, and will serve no consequences due to your whining and crying about him.
> I again tell all of you, this is wasted space, I win this argument because you are all wrong!  No prosecution, no lawsuit, no found wrong by his Internal Affairs!



 Again!


----------



## smcop

This thread is still going?


----------



## RoseRed

Everyone needs to STFU.


----------



## FireBrand

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to STFU.


 
Amen !


----------



## Mikeinsmd

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to STFU.


Did u hear that a hurricane is gonna hit Canada?


----------



## FireBrand

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Did u hear that a hurricane is gonna hit Canada?


 
nah, won't happen! they are protected by the U.S. in more ways  than one.....


----------



## otter

bump


----------



## RoseRed

otter said:
			
		

> bump


A55!


----------



## Pingwing

Please, please, for the sake of all pet owners, prosecute.  
Don't let this happen to someone else.


----------



## ITS ME

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Did u hear that a hurricane is gonna hit Canada?


----------



## ITS ME

RoseRed said:
			
		

> Everyone needs to STFU.


----------



## RoseRed

*Hey Lenny!*

I agree!


----------



## Mikeinsmd

ITS ME said:
			
		

>


Oh say it aint so.... 

Tony Stewart won at the Glen!!!


----------



## Mikeinsmd

ITS ME said:
			
		

>


There's a bad storm in the Gulf but it's starting to fizzle.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

I once sneezed and farted at the same time!!


----------



## RoseRed

*I Hate to Say This...*



			
				Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> I once sneezed and farted at the same time!!


but.. SHUTUP MIKE!!!























:lymi:


----------



## FireBrand

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> I once sneezed and farted at the same time!!


 
and you lived to tell the story ?


----------



## ITS ME

FireBrand said:
			
		

> and   you   lived   to   tell   the   story ?


----------



## tom88

Pingwing said:
			
		

> Please, please, for the sake of all pet owners, prosecute.
> Don't let this happen to someone else.


 Can't prosecute!  States Attorney's Office, and the Sheriff's Office, found no wrong doing.  Therefore, no prosecution can be conducted when a crime never happened.


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> Can't prosecute!  States Attorney's Office, and the Sheriff's Office, found no wrong doing.  Therefore, no prosecution can be conducted when a crime never happened.




Tom you are the kind of person that you just want to hate!!@!


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Tom you are the kind of person that you just want to hate!!@!


 Like it matters to me that you, a person who would condemn a police officer doing his job, and would want to HATE a person for having a different opinion than you, means anything.

You show the type of person you are by the things you say!  You would rather villify a worthy public servant and "hate" a person who disagrees with you.  I know what you are.  Liberal!


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> Like it matters to me that you, a person who would condemn a police officer doing his job, and would want to HATE a person for having a different opinion than you, means anything.
> 
> You show the type of person you are by the things you say!  You would rather villify a worthy public servant and "hate" a person who disagrees with you.  I know what you are.  Liberal!




Condemn an officer for doing his JOB???  No I would not do that, but I would condemn an officer that abuses his authority and doesnt know how to approach a house and pay attention to his surroundings.

and hate a person for having a different opinion than me, no I wouldnt do that either, there are plenty of people that have a different opinion than myself, and I dont hate them.  I just cant stand you.

There are plenty of officers that I respect, and there is at least two cowards I cant stand, one is you and one is the officer that does not know how to do his job correctly.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Condemn an officer for doing his JOB???  No I would not do that, but I would condemn an officer that abuses his authority and doesnt know how to approach a house and pay attention to his surroundings.
> 
> and hate a person for having a different opinion than me, no I wouldnt do that either, there are plenty of people that have a different opinion than myself, and I dont hate them.  I just cant stand you.
> 
> There are plenty of officers that I respect, and there is at least two cowards I cant stand, one is you and one is the officer that does not know how to do his job correctly.


 Now see, that's your ignorance showing through.  You know nothing about me, yet you call me a coward.  You know nothing about the NUMEROUS comendations and medals I have receieved in the service of my country, but you call me a coward because I disagree with your opinion.  You know nothing about the times I have helped my fellow man and woman in situations where other's may have run away from, I ran to.  Yet you call me a coward.  This just goes to show that you make uniformed decisions about things, allowing your emotions rather than clear and consise thought rule your world!


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> Now see, that's your ignorance showing through.  You know nothing about me, yet you call me a coward.  You know nothing about the NUMEROUS comendations and medals I have receieved in the service of my country, but you call me a coward because I disagree with your opinion.  You know nothing about the times I have helped my fellow man and woman in situations where other's may have run away from, I ran to.  Yet you call me a coward.  This just goes to show that you make uniformed decisions about things, allowing your emotions rather than clear and consise thought rule your world!




Well you appear to have made judgments about me and you know nothing about me.  and you claim to not know Long, so your opinions are also uninformed, but you still tend to take his side without ever hearing it from him.

Bottom Line is he was and is wrong, wrong wrong!  He killed a dog that was tied up and whether you want to beleive Max was tied up or not doesnt matter.  The officer should have known his scoped out his surroundings and since he had been to the house on prior occasions, then he should have been aware that a dog may have been present.  all in all he was worng the did not photograph his so called injury, and that is what they are trained to do.   they investigate their own and clear him, well of course they would, they dont want to disgrace the office, so a moroon could have told you he would have been cleared from the beginning, oh wait you did tell us he would be cleared from the beginning.  ENOUGH SAID!


----------



## Tomahawk202

Hey crew, sorry been gone awhile, I had to go and scrape mike off the bottom of my shoe. Now, as far as long being promoted, I still haven't gotten a chance to find out. I will soon. Other than that....how's it hangin?


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Mikeinsmd said:
			
		

> Oh say it aint so....
> Tony Stewart won at the Glen!!!


 

I got gray krama blomed'd.....    er....a.... I mean...  

Charles County officer ...  	08-15-2007 10:25 PM  	Hey asswad, your a homo, and you know what, your not half as intelligent as you think you are...Tomahawk ( again ) - Yet I am still twice as intellegent as you!!   

Charles County officer ... 	08-15-2007 05:23 PM 	off topic


----------



## Mikeinsmd

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Hey crew, sorry been gone awhile, I had to go worship the shrine to mike I built in my basement. Now, as far as being a total retard and banging little boys in my ice cream truck, I still haven't gotten a chance to find out where the best playgrounds are. I will soon. Other than that....how's it hangin?


  You should have been a priest.


----------



## PrchJrkr

ITS ME said:
			
		

> I'm a jackass.  I know not of what I speak  Officer Long  My head is in the sand


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> and you claim to not know Long, so your opinions are also uninformed, but you still tend to take his side without ever hearing it from him.
> 
> Bottom Line is he was and is wrong, wrong wrong!  He killed a dog that was tied up and whether you want to beleive Max was tied up or not doesnt matter.
> ENOUGH SAID!



Now see, your wrong again.  My initial post on here stated I don't know what happened, and we should wait until it is investigated and then make a determination.

I made no judgements about you which could not be derived from this thread.  You however, because I don't share the same opinion of you called me a coward.  That is a judgment which could not be derived from this thread.  Because the fact is this, no matter what happened with Long, only an insane person would suggest that a human being should be injured or attacked by an animal and not defend him or herself!


----------



## ITS ME

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

>


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> Now see, your wrong again.  My initial post on here stated I don't know what happened, and we should wait until it is investigated and then make a determination.
> 
> I made no judgements about you which could not be derived from this thread.  You however, because I don't share the same opinion of you called me a coward.  That is a judgment which could not be derived from this thread.  Because the fact is this, no matter what happened with Long, only an insane person would suggest that a human being should be injured or attacked by an animal and not defend him or herself!




I dont think anyone suggested a human should be injured or attacked -- I think what has been said --

IS THIS OFFICER KILLED A DOG THAT WAS TIED UP, HE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A DOG ON THE PREMISES BEFORE HE WENT THERE, AND THAT THE OFFICE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AND SERVE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO INVESTIGATE FOR MANY REASONS ONE OF WHICH BEING THAT NO PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ALLEGED BITE WAS TAKEN.


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Now see, your wrong again.  My initial post on here stated I don't know what happened, and we should wait until it is investigated and then make a determination.
> 
> I made no judgements about you which could not be derived from this thread.  You however, because I don't share the same opinion of you called me a coward.  That is a judgment which could not be derived from this thread.  Because the fact is this, no matter what happened with Long, only an insane person would suggest that a human being should be injured or attacked by an animal and not defend him or herself!


      Just go away already


----------



## Tomahawk202

Hey, whomever you are, thanks for the help! LMAO.....Now if you could just help get rid of the tards on this post, we'll be all right. LOL Thanks...


----------



## Tomahawk202

Charles County officer ...  	08-16-2007 08:14 PM  	Your silly gray has no effect on my but my red does you!!  Keep it coming fukctard!!  Mike



Guess it's a good thing I don't care about Karma...Tragic....tsk tsk tsk...


----------



## PrchJrkr




----------



## itsbob

itsbob said:
			
		

> When you have an expectation of someone doing their job!


 Charles County officer ... 08-16-2007 07:26 PM jerk 

Two months later, and all I get is jerk?? And only because I expect a cop to do his job as well as the rest of us do ours??


----------



## dmh

itsbob said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 08-16-2007 07:26 PM jerk
> 
> Two months later, and all I get is jerk?? And only because I expect a cop to do his job as well as the rest of us do ours??




Ummm, we all expect cops to do their job, and hope they do it well. What we dont expect nor do we praise is a dog killer on the force.   lets not forget, not one, not, two but THREE, count THREE dogs -- ONE cop!   just doesnt sound right.  


I would love to have him at my house for a cup of coffee!


----------



## PrchJrkr




----------



## itsbob

dmh said:
			
		

> Ummm, we all expect cops to do their job, and hope they do it well. What we dont expect nor do we praise is a dog killer on the force.   lets not forget, not one, not, two but THREE, count THREE dogs -- ONE cop!   just doesnt sound right.
> 
> 
> I would love to have him at my house for a cup of coffee!


Why so you could wet your pants when he looked at you?


Do your research and you'll find out how "right" it is.


----------



## Tomahawk202

To all the tards on this board that just don't get it.....I know cops that have gone thirty years, and have NEVER pulled their gun. THIS guy blows away three dogs in what, 5 or so years? THAT LADIES AND IDIOTS, IS WHAT WE CALL, " A CLUE ". Something is wrong here. And we ain't talking about doggys....


----------



## PrchJrkr

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> To all the tards on this board that just don't get it.....I know cops that have gone thirty years, and have NEVER pulled their gun. THIS guy blows away three dogs in what, 5 or so years? THAT LADIES AND IDIOTS, IS WHAT WE CALL, " A CLUE ". Something is wrong here. And we ain't talking about doggys....



What do you want, a pat on the back, asshat?
Nobody cares. Get it?


----------



## Tomahawk202

Hey,
 I'm an asshat, but you keep relpying to me....BRILLIANT!!!!! Hey, I got an idea, why don't you go play in some traffic.?


----------



## PrchJrkr

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Hey,
> I'm an asshat, but you keep relpying to me....BRILLIANT!!!!! Hey, I got an idea, why don't you go play in some traffic.?



Why don't you go play with yourself, asshat?


----------



## dawn

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> What do you want, a pat on the back, asshat?
> Nobody cares. Get it?




Speak for yourself prch -- I care!!  GET IT


----------



## u gotta love me

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Hey,
> I'm an asshat, but you keep relpying to me....BRILLIANT!!!!! Hey, I got an idea, why don't you go play in some traffic.?





Can I run him over, can I please.   I will say that he was agressive and running after my car.  these guys are total freaks!


----------



## 88stringslouie

tom88 said:
			
		

> Now see, that's your ignorance showing through.  You know nothing about me, yet you call me a coward.  You know nothing about the NUMEROUS comendations and medals I have receieved in the service of my country, but you call me a coward because I disagree with your opinion.  You know nothing about the times I have helped my fellow man and woman in situations where other's may have run away from, I ran to.  Yet you call me a coward.  This just goes to show that you make uniformed decisions about things, allowing your emotions rather than clear and consise thought rule your world!



Can you at least get some sort of a grammar school education and learn how to write?

We know plenty about you.  Your ignorance shows in your lack of ability to write.  It's pretty damned embarrassing.  You also lack an inkling of analytical reasoning.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> Can you at least get some sort of a grammar school education and learn how to write?
> 
> We know plenty about you.  Your ignorance shows in your lack of ability to write.  It's pretty damned embarrassing.  You also lack an inkling of analytical reasoning.



Well let’s be analytical here.  I originally stated we should wait to see the outcome of the investigation to determine if the officer was right or wrong.  Now the professionals, the internal affairs division, the states attorney's office have both said the officer did nothing wrong and his actions were justified.  Nice analysis.  No lawsuits have been filed in the State of Maryland against the officer from this incident.  Therefore, there is nobody except you bubble heads out there to say this guy did anything wrong.

I never argued with any of you bubble heads until you began to spew irrational thoughts to this subject because your all thinking with emotion instead of logic. 

The thought that this brave officer woke up that day to say.."hmmm I think I will kill Mattia's dog" is absurd.  The dog attacked him, and he did the right thing by stopping the attack.  

You bubble heads attempted to cloud the issue by spewing information about the officer killing two other dogs, then when that information was brought forward that those killings were justified and requested by the owner who had been attacked by said dogs, you ignored that information.  

Well hear this!  I am right and you are wrong.  You can say what you like about me, but this brave officer killed this vicious animal, which attacked before and would have attacked again.  If I were his chief of police I would give him a medal!


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well let’s be analytical here.  I originally stated we should wait to see the outcome of the investigation to determine if the officer was right or wrong.  Now the professionals, the internal affairs division, the states attorney's office have both said the officer did nothing wrong and his actions were justified.  Nice analysis.  No lawsuits have been filed in the State of Maryland against the officer from this incident.  Therefore, there is nobody except you bubble heads out there to say this guy did anything wrong.
> 
> I never argued with any of you bubble heads until you began to spew irrational thoughts to this subject because your all thinking with emotion instead of logic.
> 
> The thought that this brave officer woke up that day to say.."hmmm I think I will kill Mattia's dog" is absurd.  The dog attacked him, and he did the right thing by stopping the attack.
> 
> You bubble heads attempted to cloud the issue by spewing information about the officer killing two other dogs, then when that information was brought forward that those killings were justified and requested by the owner who had been attacked by said dogs, you ignored that information.
> 
> Well hear this!  I am right and you are wrong.  You can say what you like about me, but this brave officer killed this vicious animal, which attacked before and would have attacked again.  If I were his chief of police I would give him a medal!




No you have said from the beginning, that the officer didnt wake up thinking he was going to kill the dog, but you have said from the beginning that you  believe the officer did his job.  

if you were cheif of police, my azz would have moved out of charles county the day you were elected.


----------



## greyhound

Oh please, Oh please.....

Make it stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## otter

bump


----------



## river rat

I am the 1400th post! 

What did I win??


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> No you have said from the beginning, that the officer didnt wake up thinking he was going to kill the dog, but you have said from the beginning that you  believe the officer did his job.
> 
> if you were cheif of police, my azz would have moved out of charles county the day you were elected.


 One of the chief bubble heads chime in!  Well, I told you from the beginning, you’re wrong.  My prediction that this officer would be exonerated proved true.  You and the rest of the bubble heads can keep crying, but nothing you do will hurt Long!


----------



## greyhound

otter said:
			
		

> bump



Not a very nice thing to do............


----------



## PrchJrkr

*But,*



			
				dawn said:
			
		

> Speak for yourself prch -- I care!!  GET IT



you are a nobody...

:effintreehugger:


----------



## PrchJrkr

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well hear this!  I am right and you are wrong.  You can say what you like about me, but this brave officer killed this vicious animal, which attacked before and would have attacked again.  If I were his chief of police I would give him a medal!


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> if you were cheif of police, my azz would have moved out of charles county the day you were elected.



U Haul would have had to bring in an extra wide truck to move that azz!


----------



## greyhound

Charles County officer ... 08-20-2007 09:21 AM Let the thread die already!!!!!!


----------



## renfred

*Judge Abrams Poll*

Come on over and vote on the Judge Karen H. Abrams Poll:

http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=109621

Pretty interesting stuff going on over there...


----------



## tom88

renfred said:
			
		

> Come on over and vote on the Judge Karen H. Abrams Poll:
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=109621
> 
> Pretty interesting stuff going on over there...


 soliciting others to another thread?  lol


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> soliciting others to another thread?  lol





Yes Tom, why dont you go over there!


----------



## otter

dmh said:
			
		

> Yes Tom, why dont you go over there!



good bump


----------



## virgovictoria

otter said:
			
		

> good bump


 <-:golfclap:  Agreed!  :shrug:


----------



## dmh

I have to post this--

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294013,00.html

Maybe we should send our officers to Washington State for training.  This lady was mauled and beleive it to not THE DOGS WERE NOT EVEN SHOT AT!!!!!!  They were contained!   An we have an officer that claims the dog was going to attack and he shoots and kills the dog and it is justified.  

THIS IS CRAZY!   Send the officers in Charles County for better training.  The apparently need it!  Proof is here, that you do not need to shot and kill!


----------



## PrchJrkr

I have to post this--

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294013,00.html

Maybe Gig Harbor should send their officers to Charles County for training. This lady was mauled and beleive it or not THE DOGS WERE NOT EVEN SHOT AT!!!!!! They were contained, so they can be euthanized at taxpayer expense at a later time! And we have an officer that claims the dog was going to attack and he shoots and kills the dog and it is justified, all for the low cost of 7 bullets. 

THIS IS CRAZY! Send the officers to Charles County for better training. The apparently need it! Proof is here, that you need to shoot and kill!

:fixedbeotch:


----------



## heavenly was

dmh said:
			
		

> I have to post this--
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294013,00.html
> 
> Maybe we should send our officers to Washington State for training.  This lady was mauled and beleive it to not THE DOGS WERE NOT EVEN SHOT AT!!!!!!  They were contained!   An we have an officer that claims the dog was going to attack and he shoots and kills the dog and it is justified.
> 
> THIS IS CRAZY!   Send the officers in Charles County for better training.  The apparently need it!  Proof is here, that you do not need to shot and kill!



DID YOU HAPPEN TO ACTUALLY READ THE STORY YOU STUPID #####



> Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to *shoot* them on site," Troyer said.


 THE OFFICERS ALMOST had to shoot them right there, when they came prepared for it. Did you miss this part too? 



> The woman was able to grab a gun and try to *shoot* the dogs, then break away from the attack and lock herself in her car, where she called 911


 THE woman tried to *shoot* them herself. HELLO?? MAYBE IF SHE OR SOMEONE WOULD HAVE THEN SHE WOULD NOT BE IN SERIOUS CONDITION AT THE HOSPITAL??@!! YOU STUPID F**K

To be quite honest I haven't formed an opinion for either side of this argument. But this was just an ass bad example. Thanks.


----------



## dmh

heavenly was said:
			
		

> DID YOU HAPPEN TO ACTUALLY READ THE STORY YOU STUPID #####
> 
> THE OFFICERS ALMOST had to shoot them right there, when they came prepared for it. Did you miss this part too?
> 
> THE woman tried to *shoot* them herself. HELLO?? MAYBE IF SHE OR SOMEONE WOULD HAVE THEN SHE WOULD NOT BE IN SERIOUS CONDITION AT THE HOSPITAL??@!! YOU STUPID F**K
> 
> To be quite honest I haven't formed an opinion for either side of this argument. But this was just an ass bad example. Thanks.




Yep I read it -- ALMOST HAD TO SHOOT THEM -- WELL THEY DIDNT SHOOT THEM!!!!!!

The woman tried to shoot them herself -- but missed -- 

Stupid is -- READ THE STORY AGAIN  -- She ran outside to her car -- WELL BEFORE ANYONE GOT TO HER HOUSE -- SO I DONT THINK THAT THE COPS SHOOTING THE DOGS WOULD HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, since she ran to her car until the fire department and police arrived -- STUPID F@@k 
YOURSELF

And bad example -- my point is that these two dogs mauled a lady and was not shot and we have barney fife going to serve a warrant and shots a dog tied to a porch --


----------



## virgovictoria

And to think, I almost *bumped* this tread for Otter this morning.


----------



## heavenly was

dmh said:
			
		

> Yep I read it -- ALMOST HAD TO SHOOT THEM -- WELL THEY DIDNT SHOOT THEM!!!!!!
> 
> The woman tried to shoot them herself -- but missed --
> 
> Stupid is -- READ THE STORY AGAIN  -- She ran outside to her car -- WELL BEFORE ANYONE GOT TO HER HOUSE -- SO I DONT THINK THAT THE COPS SHOOTING THE DOGS WOULD HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, since she ran to her car until the fire department and police arrived -- STUPID F@@k
> YOURSELF
> 
> And bad example -- my point is that these two dogs mauled a lady and was not shot and we have barney fife going to serve a warrant and shots a dog tied to a porch --



Can you seriously not tell the difference between the situations? I mean if you are just making up random sh!t for the sake of pissing people off, then that's fine. It's just that i cannot fathom someone not being able to grasp the differences here. 

Situation A: Man shoots dog to defend himself from being mauled. He is unprepared for the situation This is his story so we'll take it at face value. Fine

Situation B: Some firefighters have locked these dogs inside the house. The police are on their way and they know the situation. Theres no surprise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES HERE?? By the way, 'shots' is not a verb.


----------



## dmh

heavenly was said:
			
		

> Can you seriously not tell the difference between the situations? I mean if you are just making up random sh!t for the sake of pissing people off, then that's fine. It's just that i cannot fathom someone not being able to grasp the differences here.
> 
> Situation A: Man shoots dog to defend himself from being mauled. He is unprepared for the situation This is his story so we'll take it at face value. Fine
> 
> Situation B: Some firefighters have locked these dogs inside the house. The police are on their way and they know the situation. Theres no surprise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES HERE?? By the way, 'shots' is not a verb.




Unprepared for the situation -- ummmmmm sorry ---  Long was well aware of Max being at the house -- he had been there (the Mattia house) before --!  unprepared -- I dont think so!   and shouldnt an officer (being correctly trained) kind of make himself aware of his surroundings -- I mean there could have been some crazy person (maybe the guy he was trying to serve the warrant on) standing on the corner of the house with a shot gun ready to blow the cop away -- after all, he did knock on a total of four doors before he encountered Max so the cop gave anyone enough time to prepare a tactic of harm.   So sorry your situation A is very incorrect.


----------



## heavenly was

My work here is done. I've exposed you for the true idiot you are.


----------



## dmh

heavenly was said:
			
		

> My work here is done. I've exposed you for the true idiot you are.




or vice versa!!!!!


----------



## PrchJrkr

dmh said:
			
		

> or vice versa!!!!!



Nope. I second the motion that you're the idiot. Shall we make a poll?


----------



## itsbob

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> Nope. I second the motion that you're the idiot. Shall we make a poll?





I bet they'll be found the idiot anonymously!!  













I know that's not the right word, but I don't know how to spell unanimously


----------



## dems4me

I have not read this thread.  Can someone please sum it up for me? TIA


----------



## itsbob

dems4me said:
			
		

> I have not read this thread.  Can someone please sum it up for me? TIA


dmh is an idiot.. 



that is all.


----------



## dems4me

itsbob said:
			
		

> dmh is an idiot..
> 
> 
> 
> that is all.




It took 143 pages to realize that?


----------



## PrchJrkr

dems4me said:
			
		

> I have not read this thread.  Can someone please sum it up for me? TIA



Officer Long shot a dog when the dog attacked him.

Mattias lied about the dog that wouldn't attack, yet a neighbor knows different, because he was attacked by said dog in the past.

Officer long is investigated and exonerated.

dmh/dawn/ITS ME and the rest of her MPDs  at the injustice of it all.

dmh is an idiot.

Sorry, Bob. I had to  just a little bit more...


----------



## PrchJrkr

PrchJrkr said:
			
		

> Nope. I second the motion that you're the idiot. Shall we make a poll?



Charles County officer ... 08-22-2007 02:01 PM bad mood today mister? get a grip 

No, but thank you for being concerned.  

Charles County officer ... 08-22-2007 02:00 PM you are pretty rude there -- anger issues??? 

I call them as I see them.:shrug:

Charles County officer ... 08-22-2007 01:59 PM WOW -- who pissed in your wheaties this morning? 

Very original.


----------



## Pete

Is this the thread where you can order the bacon flavored salt?


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Unprepared for the situation -- ummmmmm sorry ---  Long was well aware of Max being at the house -- he had been there (the Mattia house) before --!  unprepared -- I dont think so!   and shouldnt an officer (being correctly trained) kind of make himself aware of his surroundings -- I mean there could have been some crazy person (maybe the guy he was trying to serve the warrant on) standing on the corner of the house with a shot gun ready to blow the cop away -- after all, he did knock on a total of four doors before he encountered Max so the cop gave anyone enough time to prepare a tactic of harm.   So sorry your situation A is very incorrect.


 He did prepare a tactic, he stopped the threat before he was MAULED!


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Yep I read it -- ALMOST HAD TO SHOOT THEM -- WELL THEY DIDNT SHOOT THEM!!!!!!
> 
> The woman tried to shoot them herself -- but missed --
> 
> Stupid is -- READ THE STORY AGAIN  -- She ran outside to her car -- WELL BEFORE ANYONE GOT TO HER HOUSE -- SO I DONT THINK THAT THE COPS SHOOTING THE DOGS WOULD HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, since she ran to her car until the fire department and police arrived -- STUPID F@@k
> YOURSELF
> 
> And bad example -- my point is that these two dogs mauled a lady and was not shot and we have barney fife going to serve a warrant and shots a dog tied to a porch --



_The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack_ and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

The woman, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.

The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier,  

Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.

Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to shoot them on site," Troyer said.

You have to be the dumbest woman in North America!  The woman was attacked by these dogs and was in SERIOUS condition.  Doesn't this illustrate the damage which could have been done to Long had he not shot that animal?  

You are making his case!  Thank you for finally realizing that dangerous animals have to be destroyed BEFORE they maul people!


----------



## heavenly was

Pete said:
			
		

> Is this the thread where you can order the bacon flavored salt?



Yes. How many bottles would you like?


----------



## tom88

Hmmm.  No replie from DMH?  Maybe we have finally shut the idiot up.  I knew I would have the last word!


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  No replie from DMH?  Maybe we have finally shut the idiot up.  I knew I would have the last word!




You are such a jerk!


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> You are such a jerk!


 Why because I am right and she's and idiot and I pointed that out?  Or is it because my original opinion of this case was different than yours?


----------



## itsbob

tom88 said:
			
		

> _The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack_ and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.
> 
> The woman, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.
> 
> The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier,
> 
> Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.
> 
> Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to shoot them on site," Troyer said.
> 
> You have to be the dumbest woman in North America!  The woman was attacked by these dogs and was in SERIOUS condition.  Doesn't this illustrate the damage which could have been done to Long had he not shot that animal?
> 
> You are making his case!  Thank you for finally realizing that dangerous animals have to be destroyed BEFORE they maul people!


Cops should be reprimanded for NOT shooting the dogs, and putting peoples lives at risk.

This is also proof that you don't stop shooting until the threat has passed.  She stopped shooting and got chewed on..


----------



## PrchJrkr

itsbob said:
			
		

> Cops should be reprimanded for NOT shooting the dogs, and putting peoples lives at risk.
> 
> This is also proof that you don't stop shooting until the threat has passed.  She stopped shooting and got chewed on..



Doggone, bob.


----------



## Tomahawk202

I like this post....keeps alot of tards busy in one place.....


----------



## tom88

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> I like this post....keeps alot of tards busy in one place.....


 Yea, I notice you are here quite often!


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> _The woman was able to grab a gun and try to shoot the dogs, then break away from the attack_ and lock herself in her car, where she called 911, sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.
> 
> The woman, was taken to a hospital in Tacoma, where she was listed in serious condition.
> 
> The pit bulls also killed a neighbor's Jack Russell terrier,
> 
> Firefighters responded first, locking the dogs in the house, treating the woman and calling for an ambulance.
> 
> Officers "had to pepper spray and fight the dogs until they were detained. We almost had to shoot them on site," Troyer said.
> 
> You have to be the dumbest woman in North America!  The woman was attacked by these dogs and was in SERIOUS condition.  Doesn't this illustrate the damage which could have been done to Long had he not shot that animal?
> 
> You are making his case!  Thank you for finally realizing that dangerous animals have to be destroyed BEFORE they maul people!



Are you stupid or what?????  You think this illustrates damage that could have been done to Long?? are you serious?  No damage can be done by a dog that is chained up.  The only protection he meaning Long needs would be from himself.

Making his case, whos the Mattias?  These were vicious dogs that attacked and mauled and they still were not shot.  This lady had obvious markings on her and they still were not shot.  They were contained and taken to animal control.  

The case I am helping would be for the CCSO to train their officers better.  Long should have been aware of his surroundings number 1 and number 2, if you are going to lie about something, at least make it belivable.

POINT IS TWO DOGS MAUL AND DONT GET SHOT -- ONE DOG TIED TO A PORCH THAT BARKS GETS SHOT -- YEAH, YOU ARE RIGHT TOM, LONG WAS JUSTIFIED     THIS STORY PROVES IT.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  No replie from DMH?  Maybe we have finally shut the idiot up.  I knew I would have the last word!




Any by the way -- I do have a life and do not come home and race to read the fourms!  Dont ever think you will have the last word -- EVER


----------



## otter

dmh said:
			
		

> Any by the way -- I do have a life and do not come home and race to read the fourms!  Dont ever think you will have the last word -- EVER



Careful, you might upset little Tommy.


----------



## tom88

*Moron*



			
				dmh said:
			
		

> No damage can be done by a dog that is chained up. The dog wasn't chained according to Long and the determination of the investigation tard! The only protection he meaning Long needs would be from himself.  I don't even know what your last sentence means idiot.
> Making his case, whos the Mattias?  These were vicious dogs that attacked and mauled and they still were not shot.  This lady had obvious markings on her and they still were not shot.  They were contained and taken to animal control.  To be destroyed.  Long did the taxpayers a favor because of this vicious animal!
> 
> The case I am helping would be for the CCSO to train their officers better.  Long should have been aware of his surroundings number 1 and number 2, if you are going to lie about something, at least make it belivable.  The firemen had the dog contained prior to the cops getting there, if what your saying is true, you expect the Charles County Sheriff's Department to train it's officers to expect a dog is going to break away from it's chain?  You really are stupid!
> 
> POINT IS TWO DOGS MAUL AND DONT GET SHOT -- AND THE POINT IS...THE OWNER WHO DIDN'T SHOOT THE DOGS ENDED UP IN THE HOSPITAL WITH SEVERE INJURIES, AND THE COP WHO DID WALKED AWAY WITH MINOR INJURIES YOU MORON!!!!!!!!



You really are the dumbest woman in North America!


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> Careful, you might upset little Tommy.


 That's funny!  Thank you Otter you made me chuckle.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> You really are the dumbest woman in North America!



Tom,   I could really give a flippin fart of what you think of me.  I dont know you and I can not stand you.   Every time I see a post from you it honestly makes me want to  .     You have your opinion and I have mine.  I think Officer Long was wrong, Max was killed by a coward and you are a moron for thinking he was in the right.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Tom,   I could really give a flippin fart of what you think of me.  I dont know you and I can not stand you.   Every time I see a post from you it honestly makes me want to  .     You have your opinion and I have mine.  I think Officer Long was wrong, Max was killed by a coward and you are a moron for thinking he was in the right.


 The only thing is, my opinion counts.  It is the same opinion of the experts who investigated the case.  Your opinion doesn't matter a bit, except to you and the legion of tards who follow you here!


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> The only thing is, my opinion counts.  It is the same opinion of the experts who investigated the case.  Your opinion doesn't matter a bit, except to you and the legion of tards who follow you here!


Tom, the only people that investigated this -- WAS NONE -- had it been investigated, they would have questioned the lack of evidence. This just sat on someone's desk for a few weeks, waiting until enough time had past to say -- we did something. 

My opinion counts to me, and my opinion will count down the road. I have several police friends that think long wasn't in the right either. But cops have to stick together, because they never know when they may need to look out for each other -- and that's ok, but in my honest opinion, I surely would hope that someone that has to shoot a gun six times to kill a dog that is chained to a post never has to have someone else's back in a life or death situation.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Tom, the only people that investigated this -- WAS NONE -- had it been investigated, they would have questioned the lack of evidence. This just sat on someone's desk for a few weeks, waiting until enough time had past to say -- we did something.
> 
> My opinion counts to me, and my opinion will count down the road. I have several police friends that think long wasn't in the right either. But cops have to stick together, because they never know when they may need to look out for each other -- and that's ok, but in my honest opinion, I surely would hope that someone that has to shoot a gun six times to kill a dog that is chained to a post never has to have someone else's back in a life or death situation.


 The dog wasn't chained to a post when it was shot.  Your opinion is never going to matter.  Long is not getting in any trouble and the only person who is caught in a lie in this whole thing is Mattia, when he told us his dog would never attack anyone, then we learned latter this was the dogs second attack!  

So nobody investigated this.  Thanks for pointing out that Mattia's story is pure conjecture!  You are too stupid to even make up a legitimate argument.  Go away!


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> I am too stupid to even make up a legitimate argument.



Awww, have you seen the light now, little one?


----------



## RoseRed

otter said:
			
		

> Awww, have you seen the light now, little one?


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> The only thing is, my opinion counts.  It is the same opinion of the experts who investigated the case.  Your opinion doesn't matter a bit, except to you and the legion of tards who follow you here!



And your opinion count to "who?" 

You are so arrogant that you have the nerve to say those people's opinions that are not the same as yours are "tards."

Such maturity there, you piss ant, what are you 12?


----------



## ITS ME

tom88 said:
			
		

> The dog wasn't chained to a post when it was shot.  Your opinion is never going to matter.  Long is not getting in any trouble and the only person who is caught in a lie in this whole thing is Mattia, when he told us his dog would never attack anyone, then we learned latter this was the dogs second attack!
> 
> So nobody investigated this.  Thanks for pointing out that Mattia's story is pure conjecture!  You are too stupid to even make up a legitimate argument.  Go away!



Tom -- this is quoted from Max's Moms post way back when 

Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago. The man APOLOGIZED to us that day, stating he was an ex-cop and should have known better, that Max was doing his job. Again, this man stated "Max was doing his job and he should not have approached him the way he did".


Now my thoughts -- 

I don't see where she said that Max attacked anyone, are you construing "grab an arm" as attacking?   And correct me if I am wrong -- Mr. Know-It-All  --  had Max attacked this man, as you so indicate, wouldn't the police have been called along with animal control to take a report????  I believe I am correct on his, and I can say that I believe 98 percent that neither the police nor animal control was called, and why and I so sure of that, well when the CCSO gave their statement and included the fact that this officer had been involved in two prior shooting and killings of dogs, I am 100 percent sure that somehow, someway there would have been a comment made about this was an aggressive dog, that the police had been called out to the property before for his vicious attack, etc.   So no Tom, I have to argue against this one with you.  I don't think it is the picture you are trying to make it, otherwise the CCSO would have been all over that theory of prior attacks.


----------



## tom88

ITS ME said:
			
		

> Max did grab a man's arm who lived across the road when he came up to our house a few winter's ago. Are you serious?  What do you think that Max came up to the guy, paw to arm and escorted him from the property?  The point is, Max grabbed this guy's arm in an aggesive manner, and Mattia later said that Max would never do that.  Mattia lied!!!
> 
> 
> Now my thoughts --
> 
> I don't see where she said that Max attacked anyone, are you construing "grab an arm" as attacking?  YES!   And correct me if I am wrong -- Mr. Know-It-All  --  had Max attacked this man, as you so indicate, wouldn't the police have been called along with animal control to take a report????  No!  Animal control or the Police would only be called if someone wanted to call them!  I believe I am correct on his, and I can say that I believe 98 percent that neither the police nor animal control was called, and why and I so sure of that, well when the CCSO gave their statement and included the fact that this officer had been involved in two prior shooting and killings of dogs, I am 100 percent sure that somehow, someway there would have been a comment made about this was an aggressive dog, that the police had been called out to the property before for his vicious attack, etc.   So no Tom, I have to argue against this one with you.  What are you arguing about?  Mattia and the neighbor admitted that MAX grabbed the guy's arm, and the guy was injured as a result of it!



DMH.  Forget it, you are the second dumbest woman in North America!


----------



## madMAX

tom88 said:
			
		

> DMH.  Forget it, you are the second dumbest woman in North America!




I VOTE FOR TOM TO BE THE DUMBEST person in the world, but if we must get gender specific, the dumbest MALE in the world!


----------



## tom88

madMAX said:
			
		

> I VOTE FOR TOM TO BE THE DUMBEST person in the world, but if we must get gender specific, the dumbest MALE in the world!


 Oh your very clever.  Try having an original thought!


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> Oh your very clever.  Try having an original thought!


oh thats funny coming from you, considering you are  the biggest   and rumor has it that you are that way with a certain officer.


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> oh thats funny coming from you, considering you are  the biggest   and rumor has it that you are that way with a certain officer.


 The truth of the matter is...I have no idea who this Long is, never met him.  I just know what is right is right!


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> The truth of the matter is...I have no idea who this Long is, never met him.  I just know what is right is right!



When I was growing up it was right is wrong left is right!   So everyone that has an opinion about you and a certain officer could be right after all?


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> When I was growing up it was right is wrong left is right!   So everyone that has an opinion about you and a certain officer could be right after all?


 what are you ten?  Thats right, you can't beat me on the facts, so throw gay jokes.  I'm offended.  Oh I should probably go, you have hurt my feelings.  Grow up!


----------



## u gotta love me

tom88 said:
			
		

> what are you ten?  Thats right, you can't beat me on the facts, so throw gay jokes.  I'm offended.  Oh I should probably go, you have hurt my feelings.  Grow up!




awwwww otter was right your feelings were going to get hurt.  I am sorry tommy, me didnt mean to hurt you.   YOU FLIPPIN FREAK!  ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## tom88

u gotta love me said:
			
		

> awwwww otter was right your feelings were going to get hurt.  I am sorry tommy, me didnt mean to hurt you.   YOU FLIPPIN FREAK!  ha ha ha ha ha


 You didn't hurt my feelings.  Your not smart enough to hurt my feelings!


----------



## itsbob

dmh said:
			
		

> Tom, the only people that investigated this -- WAS NONE -- had it been investigated, they would have questioned the lack of evidence. This just sat on someone's desk for a few weeks, waiting until enough time had past to say -- we did something.
> 
> .


Provide proof please... 

Please tell me who should have investigated this and didn't.. and tell me what their findings were after this non-investigation.


----------



## dmh

itsbob said:
			
		

> Provide proof please...
> 
> Please tell me who should have investigated this and didn't.. and tell me what their findings were after this non-investigation.




Provide proof, you have got to be sh**ing me.  

1.    Things locked behind closed doors are just that.  The sherriffs office could not provide proof that this officer was biten.  They are not going to release anything other than -- an internal investation was completed and we found......  that is not made to the public.  

OK -- so what is their idea of an IA investiation?  sitting and talking with the officer and getting his side.  They did not take photographs of the alledge bite wound, they did not pick up the bullet casings, they did not take the dogs lead to see if there was residue on it... so please tell me if they lacked doing what should have been done, please please please tell me how and the world could you even think they conducted any thing short of a very one sided investigation.

At one time, I beleive Tom said that the investigation was public and could be located, but I beleive it was inquired of Tom to advise here to look for these so called reports, but an answer was never given by Tom. 

So based upon the fact that the sherriffs office didnt test the lead, didnt pick up the casings, didnt provide proof that the officer was bitten, I cant take their word that the "investigation" was completed and nothing was found out of conduct.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Provide proof, you have got to be sh**ing me.
> 
> 1.    Things locked behind closed doors are just that.  The sherriffs office could not provide proof that this officer was biten.  They are not going to release anything other than -- an internal investation was completed and we found......  that is not made to the public.
> 
> OK -- so what is their idea of an IA investiation?  sitting and talking with the officer and getting his side.  They did not take photographs of the alledge bite wound, they did not pick up the bullet casings, they did not take the dogs lead to see if there was residue on it... so please tell me if they lacked doing what should have been done, please please please tell me how and the world could you even think they conducted any thing short of a very one sided investigation.
> 
> At one time, I beleive Tom said that the investigation was public and could be located, but I beleive it was inquired of Tom to advise here to look for these so called reports, but an answer was never given by Tom.
> 
> So based upon the fact that the sherriffs office didnt test the lead, didnt pick up the casings, didnt provide proof that the officer was bitten, I cant take their word that the "investigation" was completed and nothing was found out of conduct.


 Tom told you it was public information you retard.  File a freedom of information act and you will aquire the report.  I don't need the report because to this point, the ONLY person who has lied in this whole thing is the jerk who got it started, Mattia!  He got you all emotionally wrapped up in this by lying saying this is a docile dog, never once mentioning that the dog bit, grabbed, attacked the next door neighbor.  He even went further, saying the dog would NEVER hurt anyone!


----------



## Lenny

dmh said:
			
		

> Provide proof, you have got to be sh**ing me.
> 
> They did not take photographs of the alledge bite wound, they did not pick up the bullet casings, they did not take the dogs lead to see if there was residue on it... .




OK, now that I have time to post, and you mention it, *what the heck does picking up the shell casings have to do with this case*?  The Mattias all harp on it, and now you are too.  Since the guy admitted the bullets came from his gun, there is no need to collect the casings (that's only important on television, CSI-type shows).  So why does not picking up the shell casings mean diddly?  If the guy went to the doctor, there is ample evidence of a dog bite.  *Why is the absence of a photo of a wound meaningful?*  The guy shot the dog and admitted it.  The guy said the dog attacked him (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking) so why is a picture necessary?  Finally, *how could the sheriff get the lead from the Mattias? *  They had already had it in their hands long enough to tamper with it if they so saw fit, so what good would it do, five or six says after the shooting to go try to get the lead?


Please explain why anyone should care about these?  There is no forensic evidence necessary in this case.  It's not Hollywood.


----------



## MMDad

I was gone for a few hours and just got back I am SOOO glad this thread was still here. I was worried it would have died out!


----------



## smcop

dmh said:
			
		

> Provide proof, you have got to be sh**ing me.
> 
> 1.    Things locked behind closed doors are just that.  The sherriffs office could not provide proof that this officer was biten.  They are not going to release anything other than -- an internal investation was completed and we found......  that is not made to the public.
> 
> So based upon the fact that the sherriffs office didnt test the lead, didnt pick up the casings, didnt provide proof that the officer was bitten, I cant take their word that the "investigation" was completed and nothing was found out of conduct.



Something you should know is that the sheriff's office may not be able to provide information about an injury to the officer without the officer's consent, due to that information being priveleged by the HIPPA act.  Further, I think Tom is mistaken.  A police report is available to the public, however personell files are only released under subpoena and a judges order.  The internal investigation would be part of the officers personell file.

In addition, I don't understand the significance of testing the lead for ballistics.  The lead may have gunpowder residue, but that would not prove anything other than the officer fired his gun, which we already know.

You should understand that an internal affairs division is neutral in these investigations, and the Charles County Internal Affairs Division has charged multiple officers with various violations to include brutality, recommending punishments from suspensions to terminations.  These investigations have resulted in the suspensions and terminations of officers.  Based on the past practice of that office, I would say the conduct an unbiased and fair investigation.  

If they never charged, suspended or terminated officers, I might agree with the good ole boy theory, but since they are doing that, the theory looses some credibility.


----------



## dmh

Lenny said:
			
		

> OK, now that I have time to post, and you mention it, *what the heck does picking up the shell casings have to do with this case*?  The Mattias all harp on it, and now you are too.  Since the guy admitted the bullets came from his gun, there is no need to collect the casings (that's only important on television, CSI-type shows).  So why does not picking up the shell casings mean diddly?  If the guy went to the doctor, there is ample evidence of a dog bite.
> 
> NO ONE HAS EVER SAW EVIDENCE OF A DOG BITE -- JUST WORD OF MOUTH
> 
> *Why is the absence of a photo of a wound meaningful?*
> SEE ANSWER ABOVE
> The guy shot the dog and admitted it.  The guy said the dog attacked him (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking)
> NO, NO PUBLIC INFORMATION ANYWHERE OTHER THAN ON THIS THREAD
> so why is a picture necessary?  BECAUSE THIS OFFICER HAS A HISTORY OF KILLING DOGS
> 
> Finally, *how could the sheriff get the lead from the Mattias? *
> HOW, THERE WERE PLENTY OF POLICE AT THE HOUSE WHEN THE DOG WAS SHOT, THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN IT THEN, THEY DIDNT HESITATE TO TAKE THE DOG TO BE TESTED FOR RABIES EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD PROOF OF SHOTS, SO THEY COULD HAVE TAKEN IT THEN.
> 
> But they didnt, why, i will tell you why, because this cop has done it before, and they figured the mattias would take the word of the cops and let it be, and SURPRISE, they didnt, it didnt get swept under the carpet.
> They had already had it in their hands long enough to tamper with it if they so saw fit, so what good would it do, five or six says after the shooting to go try to get the lead?
> 
> 
> Please explain why anyone should care about these?  There is no forensic evidence necessary in this case.  It's not Hollywood.



Well, we care, well if the sherriffs office cant investigate a simple alledged dog attack, who is to say that they will investigate any other crime correctly.


----------



## dmh

smcop said:
			
		

> Something you should know is that the sheriff's office may not be able to provide information about an injury to the officer without the officer's consent, due to that information being priveleged by the HIPPA act.  Further, I think Tom is mistaken.  A police report is available to the public, however personell files are only released under subpoena and a judges order.  The internal investigation would be part of the officers personell file.
> 
> In addition, I don't understand the significance of testing the lead for ballistics.  The lead may have gunpowder residue, but that would not prove anything other than the officer fired his gun, which we already know.
> 
> You should understand that an internal affairs division is neutral in these investigations, and the Charles County Internal Affairs Division has charged multiple officers with various violations to include brutality, recommending punishments from suspensions to terminations.  These investigations have resulted in the suspensions and terminations of officers.  Based on the past practice of that office, I would say the conduct an unbiased and fair investigation.
> 
> If they never charged, suspended or terminated officers, I might agree with the good ole boy theory, but since they are doing that, the theory looses some credibility.



I am simply saying they should have tested to lead.  if Max was chained up, there would gun powder on the lead -- the dogs collar was shot off of his neck.  so if the chain had residue on it, then the dog was chained, if no powder was on the chain, then the dog more than likely would have been loose.  Right?


----------



## dmh

MMDad said:
			
		

> I was gone for a few hours and just got back I am SOOO glad this thread was still here. I was worried it would have died out!




No chance of that happening


----------



## itsbob

dmh said:
			
		

> I am simply saying they should have tested to lead.  if Max was chained up, there would gun powder on the lead -- the dogs collar was shot off of his neck.  so if the chain had residue on it, then the dog was chained, if no powder was on the chain, then the dog more than likely would have been loose.  Right?


Are you two of the Three Stooges??  Moe Ron??


Turn off the TV, back away from CSI..


----------



## smcop

dmh said:
			
		

> I am simply saying they should have tested to lead.  if Max was chained up, there would gun powder on the lead -- the dogs collar was shot off of his neck.  so if the chain had residue on it, then the dog was chained, if no powder was on the chain, then the dog more than likely would have been loose.  Right?


    It doesn't really work that way.  The investigation into shooting the dog only came after the complaint was filed by the Mattia's.  The sheriff's office does not have the resources to thoroughly investigate each time an officer puts down an animal in which the officer said was aggressive.  Without knowing the facts of this case, and going by what I read, Mattia filed a complaint some time after this happened, and after he had moved evidence and taken photographs.   It is likely, that once he moved evidence, there was no value in it any more.  

   An item could have gun powder residue up to twenty feet from where the dog was killed, which really gives no credence to an argument of the dog was chained or the dog was loose.

   I suggest to you that the people who investigated this likely did a thorough job, they are professionals.  Officers in the State of Maryland have a strong officers bill of rights, providing protection to them by the legislature.

   The burden of proof that the officer did something wrong would be on the Mattias.  I think the fact that the guy came out in public and said the dog would not harm anyone, and then when the internal affairs investigators found it had already bitten someone, did not bode well for his case.

   I make no judgement on if this officer was right or wrong, I don't know him.  I will say though, if I were faced with a dog coming after me, I would put the dog down.  I would not wait for the dog to bite me, I would stop the dog before it got to that point.


----------



## Lenny

dmh said:
			
		

> Well, we care, well if the sherriffs office cant investigate a simple alledged dog attack, who is to say that they will investigate any other crime correctly.




Nope, I think they're wrong.  You really are the stupidist woman in North America.


----------



## dmh

Lenny said:
			
		

> Nope, I think they're wrong.  You really are the stupidist woman in North America.




Thank you very much for you kind words.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for you kind words.


 You are welcome.  Now go away!


----------



## MiMiMi

*Red Karma*

Whoever gave me the red on July 30, don't waste your time.  As you can see by how long ago my last post was I am off this topic.  Even the Matias have taken down the sheets so move on.


----------



## MiMiMi

*Red Karma*

To whoever said nobody cares about the red karma at 11:55.  If you don't care then stop sending it.  Move on with your life.  And if you do send it have the b*lls to say who you are.  No guts no glory LOSER!!!!!!!!


----------



## MiMiMi

Oh well.  Red is my favorite color.


----------



## spicy

dang, that was close. this thread almost made it to page 2.


----------



## otter

spicy said:
			
		

> dang, that was close. this thread almost made it to page 2.


----------



## MiMiMi

I have never believed in the Mattias.  If you read my previous posts you would see that I am 100% on the side of the law.  The winning side.  Charles County Sheriff's Office 1 and the Mattias 0.


----------



## MiMiMi

I hadn't said anything on this thread or any other for a long time and I signed in to see what was up and I had red karma so apparently you don't have to say anything to get it.  So show me the "mean things" I have said or STFU.............


----------



## tom88

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> I hadn't said anything on this thread or any other for a long time and I signed in to see what was up and I had red karma so apparently you don't have to say anything to get it.  So show me the "mean things" I have said or STFU.............


 I have deleted my post and offer my sincere apology!  Please forgive me.


----------



## MiMiMi

No problem.  Just didn't want to be confused with the people who believed the Mattias.


----------



## camily

MiMiMi said:
			
		

> No problem.  Just didn't want to be confused with the people who believed the Mattias.


----------



## Tomahawk202

Man this post is still here....wowsers......


----------



## greyhound

Tomahawk202 said:
			
		

> Man this post is still here....wowsers......



This Thread was a couple pages back until you revived it.


----------



## camily

greyhound said:
			
		

> This Thread was a couple pages back until you revived it.


I think this is the only thread I've seen that hasn't got to sex. I guess I could start it.
Idea for a new bumper sticker:
Charles County cops do it doggie style.


----------



## PrchJrkr

camily said:
			
		

> I think this is the only thread I've seen that hasn't got to sex. I guess I could start it.
> Idea for a new bumper sticker:
> Charles County cops do it doggie style.



:roughrough:


Er, I mean :ruffruff:


----------



## 88stringslouie

*** (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking) so why is a picture necessary?***

What an asinine comment!  To say that the dog attacked Long (with no evidence that he was attacked), because the dog had a "history" of attacking people sounds like a second-grader building a legal case.  

If you go out and murder someone, that doesn't mean that you murdered another person tomorrow.    

If you are dumb enough to think that this was an unbiased investigation, that's your prerogative.  If Joe Blow, the police officer comes onto my property to serve a summons, he sure as hell better not shoot my dog.  

I'm telling you, you've got a whole bunch of PISSED-OFF people over this atrocity.  Look at the Michael Vick case.  This bozo lost 139 million dollar contract with all  the trimmings of endorsements.  

People take the abuse of animals seriously in this country.  They are damned lucky that the courthouse wasn't trampled down over this by animal lovers.

I say let Long shoot another animal.  He'll be gone and Coffey will be right behind him.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> *** (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking) so why is a picture necessary?***
> 
> What an asinine comment!  To say that the dog attacked Long (with no evidence that he was attacked), because the dog had a "history" of attacking people sounds like a second-grader building a legal case.
> 
> If you go out and murder someone, that doesn't mean that you murdered another person tomorrow.
> 
> If you are dumb enough to think that this was an unbiased investigation, that's your prerogative.  If Joe Blow, the police officer comes onto my property to serve a summons, he sure as hell better not shoot my dog.
> 
> I'm telling you, you've got a whole bunch of PISSED-OFF people over this atrocity.  Look at the Michael Vick case.  This bozo lost 139 million dollar contract with all  the trimmings of endorsements.
> 
> People take the abuse of animals seriously in this country.  They are damned lucky that the courthouse wasn't trampled down over this by animal lovers.
> 
> I say let Long shoot another animal.  He'll be gone and Coffey will be right behind him.



Vick and Long are two different stories.  Just because someone kills a dog doesn't mean they did it illegally.  What you would have people believe is that this dog, who Mattia said was docile and people believed that, until it was learned the dog attacked before, didnt attack the officer.  We have evidence the officer was attacked.  He was treated by the ambulance crew at the scene.

Now what you would have people believe is that not only is the Sheriff's Office, who has disciplined many of it's own members, to the extent they have fired police officers for misconduct, would for some reason try to cover up this one instance.  Why?  Why would they do that?  If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they cover up every instance of misconduct?  They don't!  They have suspended police officers for misconduct.  They have fined police officers for misconduct.  They have demoted police officers for misconduct.  THEY HAVE TERMINATED POLICE OFFICERS FOR MISCONDUCT!  But you would have people believe they somehow covered this up.  Not only would you have people belive that, but you also want us to believe that the States Attorney's Office is in on the cover up, because they certainly have declined to prosecute the officer!  Then, every attorney in Waldorf is in on the cover up because none of them will take the civil case!  Wow...this is an extrodinary cover up for a dead dog and an officer who is seemingly not important enough in the agency to be promoted beyond the ranks every officer is entitled to because of longevity.

Give me factual information as to why they would cover this up?


----------



## greyhound

camily said:
			
		

> Charles County cops do it doggie style.



So Camily...what proof do you have to back up your statement. Have you done a full investigation. Maybe some undercover work?

















 J/k


----------



## camily

greyhound said:
			
		

> So Camily...what proof do you have to back up your statement. Have you done a full investigation. Maybe some undercover work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J/k


I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


----------



## tom88

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> *** (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking) so why is a picture necessary?***
> 
> What an asinine comment!  To say that the dog attacked Long (with no evidence that he was attacked), because the dog had a "history" of attacking people sounds like a second-grader building a legal case.
> 
> If you go out and murder someone, that doesn't mean that you murdered another person tomorrow.
> 
> If you are dumb enough to think that this was an unbiased investigation, that's your prerogative.  If Joe Blow, the police officer comes onto my property to serve a summons, he sure as hell better not shoot my dog.
> 
> I'm telling you, you've got a whole bunch of PISSED-OFF people over this atrocity.  Look at the Michael Vick case.  This bozo lost 139 million dollar contract with all  the trimmings of endorsements.
> 
> People take the abuse of animals seriously in this country.  They are damned lucky that the courthouse wasn't trampled down over this by animal lovers.
> 
> I say let Long shoot another animal.  He'll be gone and Coffey will be right behind him.



I figured you wouldn't reply because you have nothing to add except sensless dribble!


----------



## MiMiMi

88stringslouie said:
			
		

> *** (and public information proves the dog had a history of attacking) so why is a picture necessary?***
> 
> What an asinine comment!  To say that the dog attacked Long (with no evidence that he was attacked), because the dog had a "history" of attacking people sounds like a second-grader building a legal case.
> 
> If you go out and murder someone, that doesn't mean that you murdered another person tomorrow.
> 
> If you are dumb enough to think that this was an unbiased investigation, that's your prerogative.  If Joe Blow, the police officer comes onto my property to serve a summons, he sure as hell better not shoot my dog.
> 
> I'm telling you, you've got a whole bunch of PISSED-OFF people over this atrocity.  Look at the Michael Vick case.  This bozo lost 139 million dollar contract with all  the trimmings of endorsements.
> 
> People take the abuse of animals seriously in this country.  They are damned lucky that the courthouse wasn't trampled down over this by animal lovers.
> 
> I say let Long shoot another animal.  He'll be gone and Coffey will be right behind him.


No matter what side you are on the comparisons you make in your post are lame.  First, by virtue of the fact that the dog is an "animal" the odds of it acting in a similar manner when put in a similar situation are very good.  Animals do not have the same reasoning or self control that a person has.  From my experience, if a dog bites once he will bite again.  As for the comparison to Michael Vick, there is no comparison between the EVIL acts of true terror that the dogs he housed were subjected to.  He either participated in or allowed others to participate in torturing caged animals that in no way threatened anyones wellbeing.  He TORTURED animals.  He maintained a setup solely for the purpose of TORTURING animals. He made money TORTURING animals.  That is why people are mad as hell at him.  So whatever side you are on is your right, but lets be real about any more comparisons.


----------



## greyhound

camily said:
			
		

> I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Vick and Long are two different stories.  Just because someone kills a dog doesn't mean they did it illegally.  What you would have people believe is that this dog, who Mattia said was docile and people believed that, until it was learned the dog attacked before, didnt attack the officer.  We have evidence the officer was attacked.  He was treated by the ambulance crew at the scene.
> 
> Now what you would have people believe is that not only is the Sheriff's Office, who has disciplined many of it's own members, to the extent they have fired police officers for misconduct, would for some reason try to cover up this one instance.  Why?  Why would they do that?  If they were going to do that, why wouldn't they cover up every instance of misconduct?  They don't!  They have suspended police officers for misconduct.  They have fined police officers for misconduct.  They have demoted police officers for misconduct.  THEY HAVE TERMINATED POLICE OFFICERS FOR MISCONDUCT!  But you would have people believe they somehow covered this up.  Not only would you have people belive that, but you also want us to believe that the States Attorney's Office is in on the cover up, because they certainly have declined to prosecute the officer!  Then, every attorney in Waldorf is in on the cover up because none of them will take the civil case!  Wow...this is an extrodinary cover up for a dead dog and an officer who is seemingly not important enough in the agency to be promoted beyond the ranks every officer is entitled to because of longevity.
> 
> Give me factual information as to why they would cover this up?




I heard from a very reliable Reliable source at the CCSO that this officer is deathly afraid of dogs.  Seems he is very allergic to them.   


From what I understand that this officer was chasing a bad guy at one time, they let k-9 out to chase the bad guy, this officer and the dog intersected, he was bitten and IMMEDIATELY swelled up like crazy.  Hummmmmm………………


----------



## Chasey_Lane

Another bump...for jetmonkey.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> I heard from a very reliable Reliable source at the CCSO that this officer is deathly afraid of dogs.  Seems he is very allergic to them.
> 
> 
> From what I understand that this officer was chasing a bad guy at one time, they let k-9 out to chase the bad guy, this officer and the dog intersected, he was bitten and IMMEDIATELY swelled up like crazy.  Hummmmmm………………


 Thank you very much for pointing that out.  That gives the officer more than sufficient reason to shoot the dog when the dog was attacking him.  If the dog was allowed to bite him, then the officer may have had a horrible reaction to being bitten.  I am happy the officer was able to stop that threat before he was injured in the manner which you described.


----------



## heavenly was




----------



## heavenly was

1500!!!!!


----------



## Dork

heavenly was said:
			
		

> 1500!!!!!



Darn, you beat me to it!


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for pointing that out.  That gives the officer more than sufficient reason to shoot the dog when the dog was attacking him.  If the dog was allowed to bite him, then the officer may have had a horrible reaction to being bitten.  I am happy the officer was able to stop that threat before he was injured in the manner which you described.




ummm, no maybe he is in the WRONG line of work!!!


----------



## heavenly was

Dork said:
			
		

> Darn, you beat me to it!




I was waiting and waiting. I sort of cheated though, sorry.


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for pointing that out.  That gives the officer more than sufficient reason to shoot the dog when the dog was attacking him.  If the dog was allowed to bite him, then the officer may have had a horrible reaction to being bitten.  I am happy the officer was able to stop that threat before he was injured in the manner which you described.



Another common sense approach by the Charles County Police..have a cop thats deathly afraid of dogs try to serve a warrant on a private address. Very cool, its not just Long that has no common sense, there are others on the police payroll. I stand corrrected.


----------



## Dork

heavenly was said:
			
		

> I was waiting and waiting. I sort of cheated though, sorry.



I just noticed but that's OK.  Let's see how it takes to get to 1600.  Maybe 3 weeks, that's my guess.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> ummm, no maybe he is in the WRONG line of work!!!


 Why is he in the wrong line of work?  Are you saying people with allergies shouldn't be allowed to be police officers?  Maybe dogs should be kept in a kennel so they don't try to bite police officers who go to their houses to pick up dead beat dads?  Maybe Mattia should not train his dogs to be so violent.  We know the dogs have attacked at least two people.  I wonder how many more Mattia is hiding from us?


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Why is he in the wrong line of work?  Are you saying people with allergies shouldn't be allowed to be police officers?  Maybe dogs should be kept in a kennel so they don't try to bite police officers who go to their houses to pick up dead beat dads?  Maybe Mattia should not train his dogs to be so violent.  We know the dogs have attacked at least two people.  I wonder how many more Mattia is hiding from us?




Well gee Tommy boy, considering when you serve warrants, nine out of ten houses will more than likely have a dog, so taking that into consideration, do you think it is wise to have an officer that is allergic to dogs serve warrants?


----------



## greyhound

Charles County officer ... 09-10-2007 02:08 PM i hope a slimey snake gets ejected into your nostils. and then it slithers a lot and it tickles but also feels cold and gross. Just because snakes are cold blooded doesnt mean that it is like really cold, just that it doesnt produce its own heat  

Thank you for the green....

But it makes no sense.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Well gee Tommy boy, considering when you serve warrants, nine out of ten houses will more than likely have a dog, so taking that into consideration, do you think it is wise to have an officer that is allergic to dogs serve warrants?


 Well Gee dawn...I don't think Long has to arrest any dogs on the warrant squad.  And by your logic, if 9 out of 10 houses has dogs, and Long is this notorious dog killer, then I think he has used remarkable restraint considering he arrested over 100 people last year and only shot one dog, well I think he is doing quite well!  Now I know your going to bring up those other two dogs, but be fair and report the truth, that was at the request of the owner of those dogs after she had been mauled!


----------



## tom88

greyhound said:
			
		

> Charles County officer ... 09-10-2007 02:08 PM i hope a slimey snake gets ejected into your nostils. and then it slithers a lot and it tickles but also feels cold and gross. Just because snakes are cold blooded doesnt mean that it is like really cold, just that it doesnt produce its own heat
> 
> Thank you for the green....
> 
> But it makes no sense.


 She is not smart enough, nor is she sufficiently in control of her emotions in order to give you the right color.


----------



## greyhound

tom88 said:
			
		

> She is not smart enough, nor is she sufficiently in control of her emotions in order to give you the right color.



ok...

Who is "she"?


----------



## dmh

tom88 said:
			
		

> Well Gee dawn... I don't think Long has to arrest any dogs on the warrant squad.  And by your logic, if 9 out of 10 houses has dogs, and Long is this notorious dog killer, then I think he has used remarkable restraint considering he arrested over 100 people last year and only shot one dog, well I think he is doing quite well!  Now I know your going to bring up those other two dogs, but be fair and report the truth, that was at the request of the owner of those dogs after she had been mauled!





Tom, 

1.   how do you know that this officer arrested over 100 people last year?  Based upon the one experience I know of I seriously doubt it.

2.  Please tell me the proof you have that the owner of BOTH dogs requested for this officer to shoot and kill them.

3.  My opinion, if an officer is allergic to dogs, he should maybe rethink what duties he can and can not perform.

4.  Please do not call me by another name.


----------



## Pandora

I have a story to tell! 

I was out in the field today, which means I am knocking on doors doing my business just like a person who serves warrants.  I make about 20 or so home visits in a 9-10 hour period 1-2 days per week, 52 weeks a year.  I deal with a lot of dogs.  

Anyway, today, I had a very large German Sheppard run up on me as I approached the door.  It barked, nipped the bottom of my heals and back away a few feet from me and barked some more.    I turned around, stuck my hand down to see if I could get her to approach me, but she wasn’t having any of that.  

The homeowner is saying to me at this point, “oh, she will not bite.”  I am thinking   well, it nipped my heels several times already and at this point, I am thinking please don’t bit me but I'm being a bit cocky too, like I'm not afraid of you.  

I turned my back to the dog and started speaking to the homeowner.  She runs up behind me and pushes her nose in my ass, backs up and barks.  This dog is obviously not happy I am there at all and she is letting me know.  I said goodbye to the homeowner and start walking towards my vehicle, very calmly, praying, please God don’t let this dog bit me. This dog takes it snout and shoves it straight in my ass and pushes me towards my vehicle.  I walk a few more steps and she does it again as to say, you are not moving fast enough, let me help you some more. 

When I got in the car I yelled out the window, you bia.... you should be lucky my name isn't Deputy Long.   

BTW, that is the 2nd aggressive dog that I have come in contact with in the past 3-years and both are still alive and I didn't get bit.


----------



## tom88

dmh said:
			
		

> Tom,
> 
> 1.   how do you know that this officer arrested over 100 people last year?  Based upon the one experience I know of I seriously doubt it.
> 
> 2.  Please tell me the proof you have that the owner of BOTH dogs requested for this officer to shoot and kill them.
> 
> 3.  My opinion, if an officer is allergic to dogs, he should maybe rethink what duties he can and can not perform.
> 
> 4.  Please do not call me by another name.


 Well Dawn, the reason I know is because someone told me that.  Show me proof that the owner didn't tell Long to kill the dogs and show me proof that Long wasn't attacked by Mattia's dog.  I will take the word of the Charles County Internal Affairs Dept. and the Charles County States Attorney's Office and every Charles County Lawyer who won't take Mattia's case over the word of Mattia.  Your opinion doesn't really count, unless you will take my opinion which is you should shut up about things you don't know anything about.


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> I have a story to tell!
> 
> I was out in the field today, which means I am knocking on doors doing my business just like a person who serves warrants.  I make about 20 or so home visits in a 9-10 hour period 1-2 days per week, 52 weeks a year.  I deal with a lot of dogs.
> 
> Anyway, today, I had a very large German Sheppard run up on me as I approached the door.  It barked, nipped the bottom of my heals and back away a few feet from me and barked some more.    I turned around, stuck my hand down to see if I could get her to approach me, but she wasn’t having any of that.
> 
> The homeowner is saying to me at this point, “oh, she will not bite.”  I am thinking   well, it nipped my heels several times already and at this point, I am thinking please don’t bit me but I'm being a bit cocky too, like I'm not afraid of you.
> 
> I turned my back to the dog and started speaking to the homeowner.  She runs up behind me and pushes her nose in my ass, backs up and barks.  This dog is obviously not happy I am there at all and she is letting me know.  I said goodbye to the homeowner and start walking towards my vehicle, very calmly, praying, please God don’t let this dog bit me. This dog takes it snout and shoves it straight in my ass and pushes me towards my vehicle.  I walk a few more steps and she does it again as to say, you are not moving fast enough, let me help you some more.
> 
> When I got in the car I yelled out the window, you bia.... you should be lucky my name isn't Deputy Long.
> 
> BTW, that is the 2nd aggressive dog that I have come in contact with in the past 3-years and both are still alive and I didn't get bit.


 I am glad that you risk your life and body to not hurt animals.  That is not logical, but I am glad you do it.  I for one, don't want to pay increased insurance premiums to the Charles County Sheriff's Workmans Compensation carrier because they take unecassary risks.  If a dog attacks an officer, I want the officer to kill the dog rather than risk getting injured and possibly being out of work, having me pay taxes to have him recouperate at home, not to mention the human cost of having an officer injured!


----------



## Pandora

tom88 said:
			
		

> I am glad that you risk your life and body to not hurt animals.  That is not logical, but I am glad you do it.  I for one, don't want to pay increased insurance premiums to the Charles County Sheriff's Workmans Compensation carrier because they take unecassary risks.  If a dog attacks an officer, I want the officer to kill the dog rather than risk getting injured and possibly being out of work, having me pay taxes to have him recouperate at home, not to mention the human cost of having an officer injured!




Why of course not.  It is much cheaper to just have officers tied up on an internal investigation.   

And anyway, if I would have been bitten in the ass cheek, I could just sit cocked to one side doing something productive in the office. 

I am saving my collection power for the day I throw myself down the stairs.  They just don't know yet how dangerous those stairs can really be, yet!


----------



## tom88

Pandora said:
			
		

> Why of course not.  It is much cheaper to just have officers tied up on an internal investigation.
> 
> And anyway, if I would have been bitten in the ass cheek, I could just sit cocked to one side doing something productive in the office.
> 
> I am saving my collection power for the day I throw myself down the stairs.  They just don't know yet how dangerous those stairs can really be, yet!


 It is much cheaper for an internal investigation.  Do you realize the amount of money we pay to officers who have to retire due to a work related injury?  Up to 66 and 2/3rds their salary, rightfully so I believe, but that is a lot of money to pay someone for 30 or 40 years.  I would rather officers kept themselves safe as possible in a very unsafe job.  I don't know how long it took these officers to investigate this, doesn't seem like much time, but if the officer was mauled or seriously injured, The personal consequences, and the monetary consequences are much greater.  

I am reading your response and I am kinda taking it tongue and cheek, but there are other people out there who believe this stuff.


----------



## Pandora

66 2/3? Really? You don't say? You wouldn't think a person would throw themselves down stairs to get 66 2/3 would you? 




















P.S. My response was very tongue and cheek.


----------



## otter

tom88 said:
			
		

> It is much cheaper for an internal investigation.  Do you realize the amount of money we pay to officers who have to retire due to a work related injury?  Up to 66 and 2/3rds their salary, rightfully so I believe, but that is a lot of money to pay someone for 30 or 40 years.  I would rather officers kept themselves safe as possible in a very unsafe job.  I don't know how long it took these officers to investigate this, doesn't seem like much time, but if the officer was mauled or seriously injured, The personal consequences, and the monetary consequences are much greater.
> 
> I am reading your response and I am kinda taking it tongue and cheek, but there are other people out there who believe this stuff.



I kinda know Vrai, I could put a word in for ya if you want to change your name to Idiot.


----------



## tom88

otter said:
			
		

> I kinda know Vrai, I could put a word in for ya if you want to change your name to Idiot.


 Why would I want to change my name?  I am the person who is right!  The cop didn't get into trouble.  The dog won't attack anyone else.  And the deadbeat son got locked up.  All is right with the world.


----------



## Mikeinsmd

tom88 said:
			
		

> Why would I want to change my name?  I am the person who is right!  The cop didn't get into trouble.  The dog won't attack anyone else.  And the deadbeat son got locked up.  All is right with the world.


Dude, GET A LIFE!!!


----------



## tiny tim

allan1058 said:


> Just got this email, what a shame....and its here to...
> 
> http://wwwstmarystoday.com/News/Family_dog_dead.html
> 
> 
> 
> Family Dog Killed by Charles County Deputy
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at approximately 2:30 PM, our beloved “Max” a 6-year-old black German Sheppard, was gunned down on our doorstep by Charles County Deputy C Long.  Allegedly Deputy Long arrived at our home to serve a warrant on an individual who did not even live with us.  He parked on the side of our house, went to our front door and 2 side doors, when no one answered he proceeded around our garage to the side door of the garage.  He stated he acknowledged our dog Max when he walked by him.  Max, who was on his leash, allegedly snapped at the officer and then the officer allegedly shot Max multiple times in the head, jaw and neck, breaking his choker collar and leaving him to die 2 feet from our door.  The officer allegedly went back to his car and called for back up which during that time our son arrived, not seeing anything but Max lying in a pool of blood, picked him up, put him in his truck and raced to the vet in Prince Frederick, but Max died along the way.  When my husband and I arrived home shortly after, we found the Benedict Ambulance, 2 unmarked police cars, the animal control van, and 2 Deputy Sheriff cars in our yard, and we still were not sure what had happened.  Officer Long was in the ambulance and we were not allowed to speak with him.  We were then told they had to take Max with them to do a Rabies test, even though we presented documentation that proved all his shots were up to date, including Rabies.  A horrible situation got even worse when they told us we would get our dog back without his head, as that is how they test for rabies!  We were told “off the record” that the officer barely needed a band aide, that his pants weren’t even torn.  The sadness, pain and distress this situation has caused is indescribable.  He was a member of our family and undeniably my husband’s best friend, he spent hours with Max each day, they did everything together.  Was his murder justified – NO!
> 
> 
> 
> Sharon & Joe Mattia
> Hughesville
> 301-274-3434 (Home)
> 301-848-9446 (Cell)



so this is the other 'cop kills dog' thread. too long to read. soryr.


----------



## FrankBama1234

Well, the Mattia's son has another warrant for his arrest. If you know his whereabouts contact Crime Solvers at 888-411-TIPS! What a dirt bag!


----------



## tiny tim

yeah what a scumm.


----------



## dawn

FrankBama1234 said:


> Well, the Mattia's son has another warrant for his arrest. If you know his whereabouts contact Crime Solvers at 888-411-TIPS! What a dirt bag!



Well the Mattias have another dog, so lets just hope Officer Long isnt the one to serve this warrant!  Or better yet, they realize before hand that the kid doesnt live at the Mattia house anymore.

...
update....

I searched, I dont see where there is an active warrant for him... where do you see it at?


----------



## sockgirl77

http://forums.somd.com/life-southern-maryland/102427-charles-county-officer-murders-dog.html


Yo eddy1...ethical?


----------



## TurboK9

Wow long thread.

How to NOT get your dog shot:

1) Do not leave it outside when you are not home, unless confined to a pen or kennel area seperated from the yard at large.

2) If an inside dog train the dog for offleash recall and control.

If the cops come to your house, either 1 or 2 will go a loooong way towards keeping your dog safe.


----------



## PickUpTrash

Really?!  Two years later...


----------



## TurboK9

PickUpTrash said:


> Really?!  Two years later...



I know, huh?  I felt obliged to a part of it!


----------



## RoseRed




----------



## sockgirl77

RoseRed said:


>



I was thinking about this a few days ago. What a heated thread!


----------



## warneckutz

Wirelessly posted



			
				sockgirl77 said:
			
		

> RoseRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this a few days ago. What a heated thread!
Click to expand...


It HAS been pretty warm out lately...


----------

